4 ms·
Somewhere I saw Jordan Peterson saying that he spends a lot of time examining his arguments from all angles and trying to find fault with them. Many arguments w
by ecdavis 9y ago
Somewhere I saw Jordan Peterson saying that he spends a lot of time examining his arguments from all angles and trying to find fault with them. Many arguments we see in modern discourse are little more than a train of thought that sounds good but hasn't seen much scrutiny[0]. I've certainly been guilty of making such arguments, myself (some probably on this website). If I can make the comparison to software, it's like the difference between checking that an application works vs. actively trying to break or subvert it.
I took a class on critical thinking in university and I think it was one of the most important classes I took. I find myself breaking down a lot of what I read in the news and elsewhere and finding that it doesn't hold up to basic analysis. Unfortunately I don't think I was ever taught how to effectively turn that analysis back on myself (or perhaps an attempt was made but my teenage self ignored it).
Regarding the interview, I think it is best summarized by the lobster exchange towards the end. I was disappointed, as I would like to see Peterson challenged by someone who has done their research.
[0] Indeed, the linked article has arguments which fall into this category in places.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- vixen99 9y agoDisappointed by what? The serotonin idea is not some kooky idea thought up by Peterson; it has massive amounts of evidential backing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2612120/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2612120/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110915102917.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110915102917.h... https://www.cliniciansbrief.com/article/canine-aggression-linked-serotonin-concentration https://www.cliniciansbrief.com/article/canine-aggression-li... http://caspar.bgsu.edu/~courses/Reading/Papers/1997EdwKra.pdf http://caspar.bgsu.edu/~courses/Reading/Papers/1997EdwKra.pd...
- ecdavis 9y agoWatching this interview was largely a waste of time. I think it was best encapsulated by Peterson's comment on heirarchical social structures among lobsters being followed by the question, "So you're saying we should organize our society like the lobsters?" A collection of thoughtful statements followed by misunderstandings or outright misrepresentations of what he had just said. I was disappointed because I would like to see him defend his positions against someone with well-prepared criticisms. Admittedly I don't go seeking out Peterson content so perhaps there are plenty of those sorts of discussions floating around (if you know of any I would appreciate a link). It's not that I necessarily think he's wrong, I just appreciate the occasional probing, aggressive interview -- provided it's well-executed (which this one was not).