• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Darryl
Member
(12-03-2017, 03:22 AM)
Darryl's Avatar

Originally Posted by RastaMentality

Attitudes that undermine the humanity of transgender individuals, however severe, regardless of intent.

This concept applies to racism, misogyny, and homophobia too by the way

When it comes to phrases like this that are common and not specialized (everyone should know what transphobia means), we need to be using language similar to that which the general public would accept. I am not so sure that if you walked around and asked people what transphobia was, that you would ever get this answer for the definition. I think the general public would say that it involves intention at the minimum, the severity required would likely be contested depending on the individual.

These more nuanced versions of terms need to be constrained in use. The gender studies definitions have their place but not in common discourse, especially not on a video game forum.
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-03-2017, 03:37 AM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by Darryl

When it comes to phrases like this that are common and not specialized (everyone should know what transphobia means), we need to be using language similar to that which the general public would accept. I am not so sure that if you walked around and asked people what transphobia was, that you would ever get this answer for the definition. I think the general public would say that it involves intention at the minimum, the severity required would likely be contested depending on the individual.

These more nuanced versions of terms need to be constrained in use. The gender studies definitions have their place but not in common discourse, especially not on a video game forum.

You can make the same argument on racism, that racism isn't racism unless you intend to be hateful or prejudiced.
finowns
Member
(12-03-2017, 03:38 AM)
finowns's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

It's not really vague at all. Some definitions identify prejudice as opposed to dislike, which adequately identifies Peterson's views. He holds a prejudice against nb people, and this prejudice can be seen in:

1. Despite being a smart enough person, Peterson has done inadequate research into Bill C-16 and its applicability in the way he claims, as the courts ruled that such a scenario would require active hatred in order to be relevant.

2. Creating an association between deaths of hundreds of millions of people and people working to instill things like Bill C-16 and gender-neutral pronouns.

3. Refusing to honor people's personal pronouns and in doing so denying the validity of their gender (an act which is demonstrated in psychology to have a potential harmful effect).

4. As someone pointed out earlier, Peterson claimed that he would use such pronouns if the person's gender seemed authentic - essentially holding the proper gendering of someone for ransom, rather than just using the proper pronouns.

We can also look into some further examples, such as characterizing the issues that trans people experience with misgendering as being hurt feelings, which is very reductive of the actual impact.



The comment mentioned gender neutral pronouns as a sole example of comparison between violent Marxist nations and modern "radical" leftists.

It is vague and not a useful definition for a word. Dislike or prejudice is. The quote seems (I haven’t read the actual context in which he spoke) more a criticism of postmodernism and radical leftist ideology, which he actually states in the quote, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and won’t read into it.
RastaMentality
Banned
(12-03-2017, 03:41 AM)
it's a waste of time trying to evaluate his mindset

let's focus on his actions and expressed beliefs

"______ is a transphobic idea/statement" gets us a lot farther than "jordan is transphobic"

but i do agree his is transphobic anyway ki
finowns
Member
(12-03-2017, 03:41 AM)
finowns's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

You can make the same argument on racism, that racism isn't racism unless you intend to be hateful or prejudiced.

Wouldn’t it be difficult to be racist but not prejudiced in a specific instance?
cubicle47b
Member
(12-03-2017, 03:46 AM)
cubicle47b's Avatar

Originally Posted by finowns

Wouldn’t it be difficult to be racist but not prejudiced in specific instance?

The key word there was 'intend'. You can easily be racist without intending to be racist.
Johnny Cage In The Shower
Member
(12-03-2017, 03:52 AM)
Johnny Cage In The Shower's Avatar
He's a tenured professor of psychology, who's obsessed with studying human behavior in a politically motivated society.. He is indeed a Libertarian and especially leans towards individualism... (Seems to dislike big and nosey government) He's all about the free think, one taking care of themselves, self improvement "Putting your house in order, before judging others" etc.

If you shed all the controversy and labels (negative or positive) both (left and right) put on him, his views aren't very controversial or even damaging...

The Rubin Report of him is a very nice listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJJClhqGq_M

PS: Oh yeah he also is bit religious and references the bible a lot in his work, that could also get a bit complicated for some who are not religious.
Darryl
Member
(12-03-2017, 03:59 AM)
Darryl's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

You can make the same argument on racism, that racism isn't racism unless you intend to be hateful or prejudiced.

No, I made my argument clear. You should be using the common definitions. Racism is a different word than transphobia and if you went around and asked what it meant to be racist, you would get different answers. There's historical and cultural reasons for racism being treated or viewed differently. We don't have too much of a history of trans people being enslaved and forced into labor, so we can't treat these two phrases as if they are equal in everyone's minds.
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-03-2017, 04:06 AM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by Darryl

No, I made my argument clear. You should be using the common definitions. Racism is a different word than transphobia and if you went around and asked what it meant to be racist, you would get different answers. There's historical and cultural reasons for racism being treated or viewed differently. We don't have too much of a history of trans people being enslaved and forced into labor, so we can't treat these two phrases as if they are equal in everyone's minds.

Ignorance of the definition of the word is not a justification to use it less, it justifies using it more.
monegames
Member
(12-03-2017, 04:11 AM)

Originally Posted by Johnny Cage In The Shower

He's a tenured professor of psychology, who's obsessed with studying human behavior in a politically motivated society.. He is indeed a Libertarian and especially leans towards individualism... (Seems to dislike big and nosey government) He's all about the free think, one taking care of themselves, self improvement "Putting your house in order, before judging others" etc.

If you shed all the controversy and labels (negative or positive) both (left and right) put on him, his views aren't very controversial or even damaging...

The Rubin Report of him is a very nice listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJJClhqGq_M

PS: Oh yeah he also is bit religious and references the bible a lot in his work, that could also get a bit complicated for some who are not religious.

Ive seen quite a few of his videos and interviews. I wouldn't call him religious in the sense the church sense, not that I know his religious preferences. He seems to see religion as a man made construct, to guide us towards being the Ideal or perfect human.

Its similar to sports and always talk of who is the greatest. In basketball everyone wants to be the next Michael Jordan, or Gretzky in hockey. They are the Ideal for the people coming after them, they are almost deified in their respective sports. Similarly religion encourages people to be more like the deity or prophet or messiah.
Darryl
Member
(12-03-2017, 04:13 AM)
Darryl's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

Ignorance of the definition of the word is not a justification to use it less, it justifies using it more.

This is a really hilarious argument we are having because it's fundamentally the same argument Peterson makes about postmodernism. I believe ideas surface and spread organically and you think they need to be forced onto others.
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-03-2017, 04:17 AM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by Darryl

This is a really hilarious argument we are having because it's fundamentally the same argument Peterson makes about postmodernism. I believe ideas surface and spread organically and you think they need to be forced onto others.

Force? I'm spreading it through the use of the word. How does the word spread organically in such a way that does not involve use? And what force, exactly, is being applied? Bill C-16 cannot compel people to use gender-neutral pronouns.
Johnny Cage In The Shower
Member
(12-03-2017, 04:29 AM)
Johnny Cage In The Shower's Avatar

Originally Posted by monegames

Ive seen quite a few of his videos and interviews. I wouldn't call him religious in the sense the church sense, not that I know his religious preferences. He seems to see religion as a man made construct, to guide us towards being the Ideal or perfect human.

Its similar to sports and always talk of who is the greatest. In basketball everyone wants to be the next Michael Jordan, or Gretzky in hockey. They are the Ideal for the people coming after them, they are almost deified in their respective sports. Similarly religion encourages people to be more like the deity or prophet or messiah.

Agreed, he sees the bible as a tool designed by mankind to help mankind get by, I don't think he is religious in a traditional sense either, in fact I don't even know if he believes in God, but he does reference "greater power" in some of his teachings. "whether the greater power you believe in is nature or God etc..."

I always see a theme of him talking about family, family values, how to raise children to be strong, responsible and independent individuals mentally and physically etc. etc. I feel like this talk about family and upbringing also doesn't really resonate with young College students: which also seems to be part of the many divides he has with that demographic.
12Goblins
Junior Member
(12-03-2017, 05:33 AM)
12Goblins's Avatar
He is an anti radical left.

People love to misconstrue his arguments though
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-03-2017, 05:44 AM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by 12Goblins

He is an anti radical left.

People love to misconstrue his arguments though

It is highly common as well for people to dismiss his critics as having a desire to misrepresent what Peterson says or does.
deadscreensky
Member
(12-03-2017, 06:07 AM)
deadscreensky's Avatar

Originally Posted by finowns

That’s a stretch he was being more specific in that quote, assuming the quote in this thread is the one you’re talking about.

Let's reword it a bit, removing some of his extra, extraneous words he's hiding his message behind:
"These new pronouns are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology which is frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century."

He's making an absolutely clear comparison here: suggesting new, trans-related pronouns he doesn't like is leading the way for a political doctrine that might just kill millions of people.

(For the record I find the new terms to be slightly silly myself, but if somebody asks me politely to call them something unusual but entirely inoffensive I don't have any problem with that, because I'm not a reactionary, religious zealot dickhead.)

Replace his hated pronouns with new race language (like "African-American", once upon a time) and I think nearly everybody would agree he'd be making a racist statement. Maybe he just spoke extremely poorly here, but looking at some of his other statements about transgender people (ex: refusing to use gender neutral pronouns for his students when they request it, apparently deliberately misunderstanding C-16 so he can loudly complain about it) seems like it's part of a larger, obvious pattern.
Johnny Cage In The Shower
Member
(12-03-2017, 09:30 AM)
Johnny Cage In The Shower's Avatar

Originally Posted by deadscreensky

Let's reword it a bit, removing some of his extra, extraneous words he's hiding his message behind:
"These new pronouns are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology which is frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century."

He's making an absolutely clear comparison here: suggesting new, trans-related pronouns he doesn't like is leading the way for a political doctrine that might just kill millions of people.

(For the record I find the new terms to be slightly silly myself, but if somebody asks me politely to call them something unusual but entirely inoffensive I don't have any problem with that, because I'm not a reactionary, religious zealot dickhead.)

Replace his hated pronouns with new race language (like "African-American", once upon a time) and I think nearly everybody would agree he'd be making a racist statement. Maybe he just spoke extremely poorly here, but looking at some of his other statements about transgender people (ex: refusing to use gender neutral pronouns for his students when they request it, apparently deliberately misunderstanding C-16 so he can loudly complain about it) seems like it's part of a larger, obvious pattern.

An article written by a media outlet who strongly opposes Peterson, (have a hard on for him) uses a term like "Fact check" by ONLY interviewing A lawyer that has even a larger hard on for Peterson, and (impressively) has debated him before...

An article that contradicts itself only after a few paragraphs...

Quoting Peterson " “If they fine me, I won’t pay it. If they put me in jail, I’ll go on a hunger strike. I’m not doing this. And that’s that. I’m not using the words that other people require me to use. Especially if they’re made up by radical left-wing ideologues.”

Than basically pointing out how "Misguided" he is, NOT "Misunderstood" (If you read the article, you've known that)

Condescendingly explaining the consequences of his actions:

If Peterson was found to be in violation of the code, there are different possible remedies. He could be ordered to pay money, he could be ordered to correct the behaviour, he could be ordered to go to training, etc.

You'd think a lawyer knows what "fining" someone means?

Yup, this article sounds legit, and it's worth all the weight of the bullshit it's been written on.
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-03-2017, 09:56 AM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar
Yet fining is not likely given that such a fine must be accompanied by malice on the part of the person getting fined.

Also, that quote:

"Especially if they’re made up by radical left-wing ideologues."

Really makes clear that Peterson believes this to be a part of something that he thinks is comparable to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_k...munist_regimes
Lupingosei
Junior Member
(12-03-2017, 01:27 PM)

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

Yet fining is not likely given that such a fine must be accompanied by malice on the part of the person getting fined.

Also, that quote:

"Especially if they’re made up by radical left-wing ideologues."

Really makes clear that Peterson believes this to be a part of something that he thinks is comparable to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_k...munist_regimes

Well, there is one problem, historically there is no democratic government which tells people what they have to say. What they can't say, that is something different, because most countries have laws, which restrict some language, but controlling language by creating words is something completely different. So of course for a lot of people, this is a very dangerous idea and telling people what they have to say is totalitarian in every aspect. There is no democratic tradition behind word laws. And also that side debating Peterson has some people who are completely crazy does not help their argument.
Ide88
Junior Member
(12-03-2017, 09:15 PM)
He is a right wing cult leader.
Kadayi
Member
(12-03-2017, 09:55 PM)
Kadayi's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

Peterson said that if a student asked him to be referred to by a non-binary pronoun, he would not recognize their request: “I don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I won’t do it.”

It is argued on the free speech angle, but so is it argued as free speech when people refuse to use she/her pronouns to refer to trans women.

I find it amusing that you talk about context snitch, then proceed to assign the actions of others to him, as if he is somehow accountable for their transgressions. That's not how reality works I'm afraid. A person can only be accountable for what they say and do. Maybe less bad faith posting in future.
Rayis
Member
(12-03-2017, 10:48 PM)
Rayis's Avatar
Simplistic garbage
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-03-2017, 10:51 PM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kadayi

I find it amusing that you talk about context snitch, then proceed to assign the actions of others to him, as if he is somehow accountable for their transgressions. That's not how reality works I'm afraid. A person can only be accountable for what they say and do. Maybe less bad faith posting in future.

Adorable, but my point was that he was using the same argument, not that others used similar arguments. It's still assigned to him.
Kadayi
Member
(12-03-2017, 11:56 PM)
Kadayi's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

Adorable, but my point was that he was using the same argument, not that others used similar arguments. It's still assigned to him.

Simple rebuttal doesn't cut the mustard with me snitch, you of all people should know that by now.

There is absolutely no rationale for assigning the behaviours of others to an individual as if they themselves are somehow either complicit or accountable on their behalf, regardless of how much of a hate boner one might be stroking for them. This idea that 'he used free speech' and ' "They" use free speech', Therefore = Profit, is so utterly asinine as to beggar belief that it's being presented as a case for moral prosecution and judgement.

Feel free to keep on saying 'Au Contraire' though. I never bore of dismantling your delusions.
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-04-2017, 12:58 AM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kadayi

Simple rebuttal doesn't cut the mustard with me snitch, you of all people should know that by now.

There is absolutely no rationale for assigning the behaviours of others to an individual as if they themselves are somehow either complicit or accountable on their behalf, regardless of how much of a hate boner one might be stroking for them. This idea that 'he used free speech' and ' "They" use free speech', Therefore = Profit, is so utterly asinine as to beggar belief that it's being presented as a case for moral prosecution and judgement.

Feel free to keep on saying 'Au Contraire' though. I never bore of dismantling your delusions.

"You of all people should know that by now"

Uh

Are you implying that I should recognize you? lol

Anyway, no, it corresponds entirely to him. It is not making him responsible for the beliefs or actions of others, it is pointing out that he is using the same flawed logic of those people.
Dude Abides
Member
(12-04-2017, 03:13 PM)
Dude Abides's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kadayi

Simple rebuttal doesn't cut the mustard with me snitch, you of all people should know that by now.

There is absolutely no rationale for assigning the behaviours of others to an individual as if they themselves are somehow either complicit or accountable on their behalf, regardless of how much of a hate boner one might be stroking for them. This idea that 'he used free speech' and ' "They" use free speech', Therefore = Profit, is so utterly asinine as to beggar belief that it's being presented as a case for moral prosecution and judgement.

Feel free to keep on saying 'Au Contraire' though. I never bore of dismantling your delusions.

M’Snitch.
cromofo
Member
(12-04-2017, 04:17 PM)
cromofo's Avatar
Sounds like a knowledgeable guy, and riles up the American left which is always a nice sight.
MajinSweet4
Member
(12-04-2017, 06:53 PM)
While this thread has already gone off the rails, I'll at least mention that the "Peterson refuses to call someone by the pronoun they use so clearly he hates trans people!" is simply not true. He has flat out said that he would consider calling someone by the pronoun they prefer if it came up, it would depend on the context of the situation. What he's really against is the idea that government or businesses are going to start mandating what you must say.
Kadayi
Member
(12-04-2017, 08:23 PM)
Kadayi's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

Anyway, no, it corresponds entirely to him. It is not making him responsible for the beliefs or actions of others, it is pointing out that he is using the same flawed logic of those people.

Exactly how is it flawed? He's not saying he won't use 'He' and 'She' if someone wants to identify as either of those things, He's not saying he doesn't acknowledge transgenderism. He's simply isn't interested in entertaining the myriad number of terms that have sprung up in the last few years.

It's very well to get outraged about his perspective, but it's pretty pragmatic decision. Our interactions are complicated enough in a world that is increasingly frantic without throwing in terminology that is at best fringe in terms of its everyday application for most human beings.

Case in point, would you expect a signer to know all 50+ gender pronouns, and use them consistently and without error? How much outrage are you willing to throw at them if they get them wrong, or don't use the full repertoire?
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-05-2017, 04:12 AM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kadayi

Exactly how is it flawed? He's not saying he won't use 'He' and 'She' if someone wants to identify as either of those things, He's not saying he doesn't acknowledge transgenderism. He's simply isn't interested in entertaining the myriad number of terms that have sprung up in the last few years.

It's very well to get outraged about his perspective, but it's pretty pragmatic decision. Our interactions are complicated enough in a world that is increasingly frantic without throwing in terminology that is at best fringe in terms of its everyday application for most human beings.

Case in point, would you expect a signer to know all 50+ gender pronouns, and use them consistently and without error? How much outrage are you willing to throw at them if they get them wrong, or don't use the full repertoire?

Not much, since there does not exist any law that could force people to use the proper pronouns for someone. The understanding that the law does this is one founded in ignorance of its reach.

Reacting to your earlier point, Jordan Peterson believes a correlation between sex and gender, and he balks at the "gender unicorn," which is honestly a pretty noncontroversial idea - that emotional attraction, physical attraction, gender identity, gender presentation, and sexual characteristics are five different aspects of a person. He also suggests that the whole gender neutral pronoun thing is just "using" trans people, and claimed that a large contingency of trans people are actually opposed to this, when in fact in my experiences, trans people are often fairly supportive. It is something like this where Jordan is using a certain population of trans people to advance his own agenda. Going further, when asked whether he has any problem with trans people, he replies "as long as they're not using that to promote a political agenda" (implying that he holds caveats). He also has no idea what "not fitting on the gender spectrum" means, even though there's a word for it (agender) and it's not something that's incredibly uncommon. It suggests a man who has an idea and runs with it instead of trying to get as clear a picture as possible on the subject he wishes to discuss. That, or he's engaging in bad faith by lying about not knowing what it means in order to make it seem more nebulous than it actually is.
Dusk Soldier
Member
(12-06-2017, 12:21 AM)

Originally Posted by Dude Abides

Nope. It’s ts no more a science than sociology or economics.

Those are definitely all sciences...
Dude Abides
Member
(12-06-2017, 02:37 AM)
Dude Abides's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dusk Soldier

Those are definitely all sciences...

Nope. They don’t meet the five criteria of scientific inquiry. That does not mean they aren’t useful or valuable fields, but they aren’t sciences.

https://www.realclearscience.com/art...ce_106278.html
finowns
Member
(12-06-2017, 06:25 AM)
finowns's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dude Abides

Nope. They don’t meet the five criteria of scientific inquiry. That does not mean they aren’t useful or valuable fields, but they aren’t sciences.

https://www.realclearscience.com/art...ce_106278.html

So, returning to the question posed in the title of this article, “What separates science from non-science?” It’s hard to say. There isn’t a crystal clear dividing line between the two. But, what can be definitively said is this: A scientifically rigorous study will meet all or most of the above requirements, and a less rigorous study will meet few if any of those requirements.

The author of the article doesn't seem so sure.

Also, f that website on Edge.
Dude Abides
Member
(12-06-2017, 06:54 AM)
Dude Abides's Avatar

Originally Posted by finowns

The author of the article doesn't seem so sure.

Also, f that website on Edge.

No he’s pretty sure that social “science” studies rarely if ever qualify as scientific.

Jordan Peterson should do a study to determine whether Edge sucks. I predict the conclusion will be yes.
finowns
Member
(12-06-2017, 07:02 AM)
finowns's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dude Abides

No he’s pretty sure that social “science” studies rarely if ever qualify as scientific.
.

Although that wasn’t what I was referring to, he doesn’t say that either.
Dude Abides
Member
(12-06-2017, 10:28 AM)
Dude Abides's Avatar

Originally Posted by finowns

Although that wasn’t what I was referring to, he doesn’t say that either.

Ok. If “nuh uh” is the best you can do there’s no point in continuing.
Sony
Nintendo
(12-06-2017, 10:33 AM)
Sony's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

He certainly is transphobic, yes.

Prove it.

Jordan Peterson is an intelligent person who has solid arguements for the things he says and believes.

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

It's not really vague at all. Some definitions identify prejudice as opposed to dislike, which adequately identifies Peterson's views. He holds a prejudice against nb people, and this prejudice can be seen in:

1. Despite being a smart enough person, Peterson has done inadequate research into Bill C-16 and its applicability in the way he claims, as the courts ruled that such a scenario would require active hatred in order to be relevant.

I can't fathom how anyone who has watched the Senate's hearing of Peteron on bill C16 can come to the conclusion that Peterson has done inadequate research into the bill. If you haven't watched it, please do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo

2. Creating an association between deaths of hundreds of millions of people and people working to instill things like Bill C-16 and gender-neutral pronouns.

It's not about gender-neutral pronouns, it's about compelled speech. The fact that you don't get this yet means you probably don't know what the whole debate is about. You can replace the issue of genter-neutral pronouns to any other societal issue regarding any other group of people, the outcome is the same: compelled speech. That is the issue.

3. Refusing to honor people's personal pronouns and in doing so denying the validity of their gender (an act which is demonstrated in psychology to have a potential harmful effect).

Refusing to honor people's personal pronouns is personal in itself. Respect is earned. Why would I call a person something if that person simply asked for it? Do you honestly think I would call someone Goku if that person came to me and said that he/she would preferred to be called Goku while it's not his/her name?

Research and statistics has also proved, and that is also the arguement of Peterson, that if you DO acknowledge trans/non-binary people they way the wish, it changes nothing in their "happiness" factor and the suicide rate.

Refusing to honor... can you be more elitist? I don't owe anyone anything and I choose on a personal basis who's request I honor.

4. As someone pointed out earlier, Peterson claimed that he would use such pronouns if the person's gender seemed authentic - essentially holding the proper gendering of someone for ransom, rather than just using the proper pronouns.

And why is that bad? Authentic genders are recognised and Peterson will use pronouns associated with it because: the gender is authentic. There is no debate. But when there are pronouns on genders that are up to debate, no one is compelled to use them.

You're manufacturing controversy.
finowns
Member
(12-06-2017, 11:00 AM)
finowns's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dude Abides

Ok. If “nuh uh” is the best you can do there’s no point in continuing.

I quoted the article.. you're making stuff up.
Dr. Mario
Junior Member
(12-06-2017, 11:27 AM)

Originally Posted by Dude Abides

Nope. It’s ts no more a science than sociology or economics.



He's just a garden variety polemicist, not a thinker.

Your concept of psychology seems outdated by at least sixty years, before B.F. Skinner conclusively showed that animals and people behave predictably and you can perform clinical controlled experiments on them like any of the other natural sciences.

Of course there's psychology and there's psychology. A clinical psychologist will be much less scientific than an experimental psychologist. That said Peterson has a high enough H-index and made some name in an expertise area (OCEAN) that assures he didn't get tenure for just being a YouTube celebrity. He's definitely proved his merit to the scientific community.

What bugs me a bit about him though is that after that Google employee maligned OCEAN to make his point, Peterson didn't call him out on it but conversely started praising his wrong conjecture. If scientific integrity means so little to you, maybe you shouldn't be called a scientist after all.
Dude Abides
Member
(12-06-2017, 02:46 PM)
Dude Abides's Avatar

Originally Posted by finowns

I quoted the article.. you're making stuff up.

One pull quote is not an argument. Do better.

Originally Posted by Dr. Mario

Your concept of psychology seems outdated by at least sixty years, before B.F. Skinner conclusively showed that animals and people behave predictably and you can perform clinical controlled experiments on them like any of the other natural sciences.

Of course there's psychology and there's psychology. A clinical psychologist will be much less scientific than an experimental psychologist. That said Peterson has a high enough H-index and made some name in an expertise area (OCEAN) that assures he didn't get tenure for just being a YouTube celebrity. He's definitely proved his merit to the scientific community.

What bugs me a bit about him though is that after that Google employee maligned OCEAN to make his point, Peterson didn't call him out on it but conversely started praising his wrong conjecture. If scientific integrity means so little to you, maybe you shouldn't be called a scientist after all.

He’s proved his merit to the psychological community, not the scientific community. That one set of experiments performed by one person was more scientifically rigorous than the vast majority of psychological reserach does not establsih pyschology as a whole as a scientific endeavor. It does the opposite.
Dr. Mario
Junior Member
(12-06-2017, 03:00 PM)
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Dude Abides
Member
(12-06-2017, 03:34 PM)
Dude Abides's Avatar
Compelling argument. Fact is real scientists don’t consider social studies science, however much social studiers would like to have the cache and legitimacy of real science. Deal.
Dr. Mario
Junior Member
(12-06-2017, 03:44 PM)
Unlike, quite clearly you, I am a real scientist. Very few people belonging to university faculties who are worth their salt hold your opinion re:psychology. Though I see you're trying to shift the goal posts by now talking about social sciences in general. Nice try.
Dude Abides
Member
(12-06-2017, 03:49 PM)
Dude Abides's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dr. Mario

Unlike, quite clearly you, I am a real scientist. Very few people belonging to university faculties who are worth their salt hold your opinion re:psychology. Though I see you're trying to shift the goal posts by now talking about social sciences in general. Nice try.

Please try making an argument rather than mindlessly rewording your strongly held opinion. Psychology does not meet the criteria for scientific endeavor. Putting statistics into speculation doesn’t make it science.
Dr. Mario
Junior Member
(12-06-2017, 04:04 PM)

Originally Posted by Dude Abides

Please try making an argument rather than mindlessly rewording your strongly held opinion. Psychology does not meet the criteria for scientific endeavor. Putting statistics into speculation doesn’t make it science.

That's rich coming from someone who quite clearly has no clue what he's talking about and has only made dismissive and erroneous claims so far. But of course it does. Trying to create models of reality by verification and falsification is very much what natural science is about and what experimental psychologists are generally doing. Please provide me with a demarcation criterion (obviously pre-Kuhn) that would rule out behaviorism but not 95% of everything else researched at universities.
finowns
Member
(12-06-2017, 04:13 PM)
finowns's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dude Abides

One pull quote is not an argument. Do better.

Wrong again. ‘One pull quote’ can be an argument. Now I wonder what you’re going to make up next.
Dude Abides
Member
(12-06-2017, 05:59 PM)
Dude Abides's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dr. Mario

That's rich coming from someone who quite clearly has no clue what he's talking about and has only made dismissive and erroneous claims so far. But of course it does. Trying to create models of reality by verification and falsification is very much what natural science is about and what experimental psychologists are generally doing. Please provide me with a demarcation criterion (obviously pre-Kuhn) that would rule out behaviorism but not 95% of everything else researched at universities.

Empirical analysis of the natural world that produces quantifiable, testable and repeatable results under well-controlled experimental conditions. Another criteria is the establishment of a basic agreed-upon body of knowledge. Psychology has none of these characteristics, however angry and emotional it makes you to have it pointed out.
dragonfart28
Member
(12-06-2017, 10:24 PM)

Originally Posted by Sinfamy

He believes whatever gets him more money on Patreon.

That would certainly be a hero of the right.
gunslikewhoa
Member
(12-07-2017, 02:01 AM)
gunslikewhoa's Avatar
The guy doesn't have 500+ hours of videos up on YouTube. Go watch and make up your own mind.
unpopularblargh
Member
(12-07-2017, 08:45 AM)
unpopularblargh's Avatar
As a Canadian I find him to be either an idiot or a liar. Maybe he's both. He completely misinterprets what bill C16 does or is even about.

Also his views on women are a very regressive and awful. Also his hate-boner for Frozen is fucking hilarious.

Thread Tools