‘We’re teaching university students lies’ – An interview with Dr Jordan Peterson

https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577#.70etk3972

The Intellectual Yet Idiot

... their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them. With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3 of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.

Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats who feel entitled to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They can’t tell science from scientism — in fact in their image-oriented minds scientism looks more scientific than real science.​
 
I also support free speech, so I'm just adding this as a potential other angle to critically evaluate Peterson's statements on the pronouns thing.

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

I think Peterson covers this in the debate, here -
33m30s & 65m48s

>To return to the claim that Bill C-16 is the most serious infringement on free speech in Canada?
Also he makes the point that there is a massive difference between not being allowed to say something and being compelled to say something

EDIT: got the specific timeframe he answers this in, watch the whole thing for more context and more arguments though. Forgot to mention he debates professor Cossman who wrote that post and this argument comes up a few times.
 
Last edited:
Just for those who aren't up to speed on how Dr Peterson became newsworthy (I wasn't until this thread sparked my interest), here are the three videos he released on YouTube that sparked the controversy:


At the risk of boring everybody, here's a little - hopefully not too anodyne - analysis. Since I spent the time digging into this issue and following all of the resources, I feel compelled to "make something" of all of that research, and so this is it (there is much more that I could say, but I don't want to take up too much bandwidth, at least not to start with).

The debate between "social justice warriors" ("SJW"s) and their opponents seems to operate in bad faith: each side regards the other as nefarious and attempting to abrogate fundamental principles; each side fails to recognise the good of the principle motivating its opponents.

These principles (as best I understand them) are as follows:

"SJW"s seem committed to the principle that all people, regardless of their personal characteristics, beliefs and identity in general, deserve to be free from hatred, harassment and "even" disrespect.

Anti-"SJW"s seem committed to the principle that all people should feel free to express their true opinion without fear of being punished for it.

Both of these are laudable principles, although obviously there is a tension between them. Unfortunately, in the tension, it seems to me that each side interprets the other as being opposed to one principle rather than as promoting the other.

Here's how I see that working:

As a result of the conflict, "SJW"s interpret their opponents as being opposed to the "SJW"-motivating principle that everybody deserves to be free from hatred, harassment and disrespect, and thus "SJW"s interpret their opponents as being (at least potentially) hateful harassers and disrespecters, perhaps of certain minority groups with certain characteristics, when actually their opponents would probably agree that hatred, harassment and disrespect are to be discouraged, they just believe that the lengths to which "SJW"s go to seek to discourage them conflict too much with their own motivating principle (of freedom of expression).

And on that same anti-"SJW" side, the opposition from "SJW"s leads them to believe that "SJW"s are opposed to the principle that people should feel free to express their true opinion without fear of being punished for it, and thus the anti-"SJW"s suspect "SJW"s of seeking an Orwellian State in which mere thought-crimes are punished, when actually their opponents ("SJW"s) would probably agree that feeling free to voice one's opinion without being punished for it is a good thing, they just believe that there are important exceptions which are required in order to uphold their own motivating principle.

In support of these contentions (of bad faith on both sides) I offer the following evidence: in the debate video, Professor Bryson saw fit to "denounce" Professor Peterson for his (what I think she both implied and imagined) disrespect of and hatred towards those with a trans identity; and on the other side, Professor Peterson asserted in one of his videos that "SJW" attempts to (in his view) suppress opinions are very probably motivated by the intended (by "SJW"s) consequence that this will have - outbreaks of violence - and he warned that "SJW" activism leads to an authoritarian society along the lines of the former USSR.

I believe that it is possible for both sides to engage in good (or at least better) faith. I'm not sure whether this post at all points the way in that respect, but I welcome opinions!
 
There is a common effect where each side attributes the characteristics of the extremists on the other side to everyone on the other side. The news media, politicians and some religious leaders who are trying to profit off the controversy are often the biggest cause of this problem. This is the real "fake news" problem. It makes polite discussion extremely difficult and obstructs the possibility of compromise when in reality most people on each side would accept the validity of what the other side is concerned with if they weren't influenced by constant demonization of the other side.

For example, Trump is smeared because white supremicists support him. Clinton is smeared because black lives matter protesters chant "pigs in a blanket". But neither extremist group represents the beliefs of most Trump or Clinton supporters. And even if someone goes to look at opposition media sources to get a "balanced view", they don't see the opposition's views portrayed accurately, they see a caricature of themselves being demonized - which seems to confirm the view that members of the opposition are sutpid, crazy, or evil.


 
Last edited:
Just for those who aren't up to speed on how Dr Peterson became newsworthy (I wasn't until this thread sparked my interest), here are the three videos he released on YouTube that sparked the controversy:


At the risk of boring everybody, here's a little - hopefully not too anodyne - analysis. Since I spent the time digging into this issue and following all of the resources, I feel compelled to "make something" of all of that research, and so this is it (there is much more that I could say, but I don't want to take up too much bandwidth, at least not to start with).

The debate between "social justice warriors" ("SJW"s) and their opponents seems to operate in bad faith: each side regards the other as nefarious and attempting to abrogate fundamental principles; each side fails to recognise the good of the principle motivating its opponents.

These principles (as best I understand them) are as follows:

"SJW"s seem committed to the principle that all people, regardless of their personal characteristics, beliefs and identity in general, deserve to be free from hatred, harassment and "even" disrespect.

Anti-"SJW"s seem committed to the principle that all people should feel free to express their true opinion without fear of being punished for it.

Both of these are laudable principles, although obviously there is a tension between them. Unfortunately, in the tension, it seems to me that each side interprets the other as being opposed to one principle rather than as promoting the other.

Here's how I see that working:

As a result of the conflict, "SJW"s interpret their opponents as being opposed to the "SJW"-motivating principle that everybody deserves to be free from hatred, harassment and disrespect, and thus "SJW"s interpret their opponents as being (at least potentially) hateful harassers and disrespecters, perhaps of certain minority groups with certain characteristics, when actually their opponents would probably agree that hatred, harassment and disrespect are to be discouraged, they just believe that the lengths to which "SJW"s go to seek to discourage them conflict too much with their own motivating principle (of freedom of expression).

And on that same anti-"SJW" side, the opposition from "SJW"s leads them to believe that "SJW"s are opposed to the principle that people should feel free to express their true opinion without fear of being punished for it, and thus the anti-"SJW"s suspect "SJW"s of seeking an Orwellian State in which mere thought-crimes are punished, when actually their opponents ("SJW"s) would probably agree that feeling free to voice one's opinion without being punished for it is a good thing, they just believe that there are important exceptions which are required in order to uphold their own motivating principle.

In support of these contentions (of bad faith on both sides) I offer the following evidence: in the debate video, Professor Bryson saw fit to "denounce" Professor Peterson for his (what I think she both implied and imagined) disrespect of and hatred towards those with a trans identity; and on the other side, Professor Peterson asserted in one of his videos that "SJW" attempts to (in his view) suppress opinions are very probably motivated by the intended (by "SJW"s) consequence that this will have - outbreaks of violence - and he warned that "SJW" activism leads to an authoritarian society along the lines of the former USSR.

I believe that it is possible for both sides to engage in good (or at least better) faith. I'm not sure whether this post at all points the way in that respect, but I welcome opinions!

You are missing possibly the main reason why people dislike SJWs: their tactics are heinous. Group shaming is a staple used by several of the SJW "leaders", they act like packs and harass those average Joes that confront them, while the more hardcore of their minions actually cross the line and try to get people discredited professionally and even fired from their jobs simply due to ideological disagreements. That is worse that simply being "triggered", its downright fanatical.

When people that grew up between the 1960s-90s, where virtually all the rebelling was being done for the sake of "freedom", "free speech", etc. encounter this sort of behavior, the response is going to get virulent. Occasionally they even use the same shaming tactics against some random individual as was the case in the "Trigglypuff" incident, but most of the moderate/conservative offensive is focused on the SJW leaders, which at least seems to be in better taste than running random average Joes out of Twitter/FB or messing with their personal lives.

Edit: It's their tactics that really prevent consensus or even actual discussion between both sides, not only ideological boundaries. Both the SJWs and the alt-Right are extreme minorities, but out of the two, only the first has managed to alienate even those that they are supposedly "defending". There are reasons for that, the main one being that they are so reactionary that they actually turn on their own and cannibalize, something that the moderate left voters weren't going to get involved with. Hilary, being an awfully establishment-friendly face immersed in an anti-establishment election, should have known better than letting prominent SJWs lead the online campaign along the dreadfully pretentious Young Turks.

PS- Look up GamerGate and read both sides of the argument, you will find some interesting things in there.
 
Last edited:
It's their tactics that really prevent consensus or even actual discussion between both sides, not only ideological boundaries.

Fair point, but as you might have implied...

Look up GamerGate and read both sides of the argument, you will find some interesting things in there.

...their opponents aren't always perfectly well-behaved either: witness the "beat up Anita Sarkeesian" game.
 
Fair point, but as you might have implied...



...their opponents aren't always perfectly well-behaved either: witness the "beat up Anita Sarkeesian" game.

Yes, that was in bad taste. But, the creator was mocking her before officially "joining" GamerGate and clearly had an axe to grind. I don't know exactly what motivated Benjamin Daniel, but given Anita's history, I would not dismiss the likely possibility that he is trolling her due to a tendency to publicly victimize her own self (it's what trolls do). In any case, she is still a "leader" and made the decision to be one of the SJW faces in GG, unlike "Trigglypuff" who was nothing more than an unknown student.
 
I strongly suspect the internet has been & is doing something to people's brains. A brain made to survive in a 3D + continuous time environment relatively quickly finds a large portion of its discourse on a medium that is non-spatial which may have also lowered attention spans and emphasized quick reaction times w.r.t. responses.

There's some interesting work on this, that where you once argued politely with your neighbor - you who saw as more than a grab-bag of positions - you now have most debates of substance with faceless beings on to whom one projects whatever is necessary to preserve the supposed battle of heroes vs. villains. Where once it would be the extremist who was mocked for viewing the world as a dangerous Chaoskampf in which a bit of acquiesence was a road to Hell, the silliness of slippery slope fallacies and moral panic now is a form of tribal identification. (In this I would include some panic about "SJWs" as well as the panic of "SJWs".)

Additionally since few are taught logical fallacies and other aspects of critical thinking which ground philosophy - for example I learned what I know of it out-of-school - most can only argue positions they already hold and also come to wrap their identity in labels like "conservative", "liberal", etc.

If there was ever need for a Trickster to reshuffle societal expectations...
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
The online disinhibition effect is the reduction or abandonment in remote electronic communications of those social restrictions and inhibitions that would arise in normal face-to-face communication. Many factors cause this disinhibition, including the appearance of dissociative anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity, solipsistic introjection, dissociative imagination, and minimization of authority.

The lack of of non-verbal, humanizing, cues in communication, such as tone of voice, facial experssion, posture etc also plays a role.

Another cause of polarization in the US is that political parties have sorted based on liberal/conservative preferences. There used to be conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans due to the origins of the parties and different interests of geographical regions in the past (For example, southerners, liberals and conservatives, used to be Democrats because Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.). But now almost all democrats are liberals and almost all republicans are conservatives. There are still geographical differences. Northeast republicans tend to be more liberal than midwestern republicans. But this sorting has led to very little tolerance for people with different views.
 
I strongly suspect the internet has been & is doing something to people's brains. A brain made to survive in a 3D + continuous time environment relatively quickly finds a large portion of its discourse on a medium that is non-spatial which may have also lowered attention spans and emphasized quick reaction times w.r.t. responses.

There's some interesting work on this, that where you once argued politely with your neighbor - you who saw as more than a grab-bag of positions - you now have most debates of substance with faceless beings on to whom one projects whatever is necessary to preserve the supposed battle of heroes vs. villains. Where once it would be the extremist who was mocked for viewing the world as a dangerous Chaoskampf in which a bit of acquiesence was a road to Hell, the silliness of slippery slope fallacies and moral panic now is a form of tribal identification. (In this I would include some panic about "SJWs" as well as the panic of "SJWs".)

Additionally since few are taught logical fallacies and other aspects of critical thinking which ground philosophy - for example I learned what I know of it out-of-school - most can only argue positions they already hold and also come to wrap their identity in labels like "conservative", "liberal", etc.

If there was ever need for a Trickster to reshuffle societal expectations...

Since very early the internet became a refuge for all sorts of marginal groups, initially what were typically considered "nerds" was the predominant fauna of the web. Within a few years, gays, atheists, "conspiracy theorists" (I mean the really kooky ones, the ones that think that the queen is a lizard), etc. became abundant as well. I am old enough to have seen it all firsthand, and understand why the internet has its leanings.

That's why I'm not panicked about SJWs (despite finding their MO tendentious and annoying), they are a tiny vocal minority and most possibly reflect that rebellious stage that we all undergo in college. The ones that remain SJWs after coming of age usually have some underlying reason (useless degrees, interest in selling some sort of product, attentionitis, etc.). However, what must concern us is how the media is reacting to this tiny minority. They are either displacing the moderate left in their programming to give more exposure to SJWs (granted that their nonsense can be entertaining and they have been cartooning the right for years, so this is expected) and/or self-censoring their own product to accommodate marginal restrictions. That is not going to end well, soon enough there will be a rebound effect that will hurt legitimate activists.

...you now have most debates of substance with faceless beings on to whom one projects whatever is necessary to preserve the supposed battle of heroes vs. villains.
Some people can't tell the difference. But I think that the older generations can at least humanize these avatars. It would seem weird if I felt a need to chastise the skeptic stubbornness of every bloodhound that crosses my path since joining this forum.
 
Since very early the internet became a refuge for all sorts of marginal groups, initially what were typically considered "nerds" was the predominant fauna of the web. Within a few years, gays, atheists, "conspiracy theorists" (I mean the really kooky ones, the ones that think that the queen is a lizard), etc. became abundant as well. I am old enough to have seen it all firsthand, and understand why the internet has its leanings.

That's why I'm not panicked about SJWs (despite finding their MO tendentious and annoying), they are a tiny vocal minority and most possibly reflect that rebellious stage that we all undergo in college. The ones that remain SJWs after coming of age usually have some underlying reason (useless degrees, interest in selling some sort of product, attentionitis, etc.). However, what must concern us is how the media is reacting to this tiny minority. They are either displacing the moderate left in their programming to give more exposure to SJWs (granted that their nonsense can be entertaining and they have been cartooning the right for years, so this is expected) and/or self-censoring their own product to accommodate marginal restrictions. That is not going to end well, soon enough there will be a rebound effect that will hurt legitimate activists.

Some people can't tell the difference. But I think that the older generations can at least humanize these avatars. It would seem weird if I felt a need to chastise the skeptic stubbornness of every bloodhound that crosses my path since joining this forum.

I'd agree the internet was a haven for many people - I found/find it fascinating in that regard, as you can now find people with similar interests to one's own. I do feel like the dialogue in earlier years wasn't as tied to quick reactions in the way it is now whether it's Twitter or even comment sections where having an actual conversation is more difficult given the physical display of long running threads. (Admittedly this does keep people from going far off topic in some areas.)

Is the media reacting to a tiny minority? I regularly check the major American networks (ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN) and a variety of news sites - the ones that seem to delve deeply into this stuff are catered toward political brands?

On older generations....I'm not so sure. Though I'd hope people who are older aren't making video games about violence toward women whose opinions they don't like or ranting about white people being inherently evil. I do suspect that is younger people engulfed in video game & cartoon fantasies. OTOH older people are arguably more likely to get caught up in Chaoskampf of religious fantasy where the Other is identified with the Devil, or just Evil in some form.

In general I think humans are prone to Fundamental Attribution Error regardless of their age or origin? Possibly something in the way our minds/brains work...
 
I'd agree the internet was a haven for many people - I found/find it fascinating in that regard, as you can now find people with similar interests to one's own. I do feel like the dialogue in earlier years wasn't as tied to quick reactions in the way it is now whether it's Twitter or even comment sections where having an actual conversation is more difficult given the physical display of long running threads. (Admittedly this does keep people from going far off topic in some areas.)

I agree that Twitter has changed the way that people interact, the character limit is designed for superfluous commentary, a situation made worse by being friendly to thrigger-friendly people. But, quite frankly, the real issue is how popular it became among the average Joe. Old chat rooms also exhibited some of Twitter's flaws, but the chatter there rarely (if ever) made it to the media; there was also a sense of anonymity that prevented the sensationalism linked to celebrities, politicians, etc. saying stupid things with full recognition. For some bizarre reason, people actually seem surprised when they do, presumably because in our days only the blunders that "passed the filters" of the MSM became known and these people were held to different standards.

Is the media reacting to a tiny minority? I regularly check the major American networks (ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN) and a variety of news sites - the ones that seem to delve deeply into this stuff are catered toward political brands?

It certainly is. I agree that in radio/television most of the pandering takes place among the politically concerned, for now. Elsewhere, it is having a direct effect. We see it in subtle ways, such as Hollywood including more ethnic variety or a female lead in its products (these are actually constructive, despite the cohercion). But also in obvious, in your face ways, as was the entire publicity campaign for the new Ghostbusters movie, in which old fans where accused of being misogynistic for criticizing a trailer (by the director himself) and SJWs began a parallel campaign to support the movie -not because it was good, but- because it featured an all-female cast, disregarding what a bad movie may do to the lore that the fanbase followed for 30 years. In video games, following the GamerGate affair most developers held their ground, leaving SJWs only controlling Indy development, but a few did give in and not only self-censored their product, but placed SJWs in key positions (Naughty Dog comes to mind).

On older generations....I'm not so sure. Though I'd hope people who are older aren't making video games about violence toward women whose opinions they don't like or ranting about white people being inherently evil. I do suspect that is younger people engulfed in video game & cartoon fantasies. OTOH older people are arguably more likely to get caught up in Chaoskampf of religious fantasy where the Other is identified with the Devil, or just Evil in some form.
I wholeheartedly agree with both assertions. We are no exempt either.

In general I think humans are prone to Fundamental Attribution Error regardless of their age or origin? Possibly something in the way our minds/brains work...
That seems quite possible, but it's actually the way that we respond to it that defines us. We can't consider someone inherently "evil" due to their ideological beliefs and then do something destructive like having that person fired, publicly shamed or even run out of a certain industry. That is hypocrisy.
 
I agree that Twitter has changed the way that people interact, the character limit is designed for superfluous commentary, a situation made worse by being friendly to thrigger-friendly people. But, quite frankly, the real issue is how popular it became among the average Joe. Old chat rooms also exhibited some of Twitter's flaws, but the chatter there rarely (if ever) made it to the media
Not only do they bring out celebrities' tweets, but what appalls me is listing a couple anonymous people's tweets as somehow representative of the public pulse. They - the media - can basically make anything seem supported by finding (or fabricating) two or three random opinions supposedly on twitter and quoting them in "articles." I see this often.
 
Not only do they bring out celebrities' tweets, but what appalls me is listing a couple anonymous people's tweets as somehow representative of the public pulse. They - the media - can basically make anything seem supported by finding (or fabricating) two or three random opinions supposedly on twitter and quoting them in "articles." I see this often.

Misrepresentation has always been there, but it wasn't as accessible to incompetent journalists. Back then you couldn't link to something and people did not write down their nonsense for public scrutiny, it was your word against theirs and most journalists avoided that.
 
Back
Top