3 ms·

No no, don’t believe Jordan Peterson (main cite in this article). He’s a media troll who takes controversial views on purpose and is at the fringes of psycholo

by mhneu 8y ago

No no, don’t believe Jordan Peterson (main cite in this article). He’s a media troll who takes controversial views on purpose and is at the fringes of psychology. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/the-profound-sadness-in-jordan-petersons-antidote-to-chaos/2018/05/09/8e1be3a4-53bd-11e8-9c91-7dab596e8252_story.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/... One of Peterson’s main arguments is about college campuses and politics. But 85% of HARD scientists - who have nothing to do with politics - are liberals (2015 AAAS poll). That argues that smart people like those at universities see through right wing propaganda - they’ve read Orwell and Arendt and Altemeyer and John Dean and “Manufacturing Consent” and understand how propaganda works. Peterson is toxic and definitely not an intellectual model.

wwweston 8y ago
This article isn't really about Peterson, it's about Price's Law. There's certainly some discussion to be had about how that law is conceived/applicable, but you seem to be taking the tack that Price's law is a suspect concept because Jordan Peterson is introducing people to it. If we're talking intellectual models, I doubt people are going to be impressed by that approach. Since we're here, though, I'm interested in evidence that Peterson is on the fringes of Psychology (the WaPo link does not make that case; it's not even clear it's a criticism of Peterson, though it arguably damns with faint praise). I think he and his audiences could use more good critics.
zeth___ 8y ago
Have you talked to any hard scientists? Reading liberal arts is right up there with reading bondage magazine monthly in terms of popularity and taboo. The definition of liberal is much closer to libertarian. I've never heard people make a defense of pedophilia in public outside of a lab at 8pm when all the normal people have left.
noobiemcfoob 8y ago
You're holding up a liberal rag as evidence that Peterson (a vocal conservative) is a troll. He's not a troll so much as someone on the wrong end of identity politics. Sam Harris and others wouldn't associate with him if your claims were true. Working with that 85% of "HARD scientists", yeah, they're mostly pretty liberal, but they're just as likely to spout off horrible conspiracy theories and assume all conservatives are backwater inbreds as anyone else. That bias is supremely real, and it's not because scientists have a magical, rational filter against propaganda.
- mhneu 8y ago
  I suggest reading Mann and Ornstein on the intellectual foundations behind modern US conservativism. They are both historians of politics and 20 years ago were considered supremely centrist and above the fray. What they say about (American) conservatism is sobering. Another good source is Josh Greene’s book on Bannon. That book describes how Bannon used GOP billionaire money (Mercer) to intentionally try to radicalize young tech-savvy men for the conservative cause. Bannon realized (and Prager around the same time) that with some propaganda he could persuade young mostly-white men to vote for the pro-billionaire agenda of the Republicans. I won’t say more here to avoid getting into politics on HN. But check out those sources for more info. —- On the the square root phenomenon, I wonder whether this arises due to the experience required to be very productive at creative work. Factory workers have little ability to be twice as productive as their peers. But the best salespeople and programmers can easily be many times as productive as at the entry-level. There’s a nonlinear function of experience and skills. I bet one could build some automata/stat mech type models of this. (And it’s not even clear you need to care about interactions). See if nonlinearities in productivity as a function of experience (and as importantly, luck- and maybe talent) hold in soft fields and creative fields.

by mhneu 8y ago

wwweston 8y ago

This article isn't really about Peterson, it's about Price's Law. There's certainly some discussion to be had about how that law is conceived/applicable, but you seem to be taking the tack that Price's law is a suspect concept because Jordan Peterson is introducing people to it. If we're talking intellectual models, I doubt people are going to be impressed by that approach. Since we're here, though, I'm interested in evidence that Peterson is on the fringes of Psychology (the WaPo link does not make that case; it's not even clear it's a criticism of Peterson, though it arguably damns with faint praise). I think he and his audiences could use more good critics.

zeth___ 8y ago

Have you talked to any hard scientists? Reading liberal arts is right up there with reading bondage magazine monthly in terms of popularity and taboo. The definition of liberal is much closer to libertarian. I've never heard people make a defense of pedophilia in public outside of a lab at 8pm when all the normal people have left.

noobiemcfoob 8y ago

You're holding up a liberal rag as evidence that Peterson (a vocal conservative) is a troll. He's not a troll so much as someone on the wrong end of identity politics. Sam Harris and others wouldn't associate with him if your claims were true. Working with that 85% of "HARD scientists", yeah, they're mostly pretty liberal, but they're just as likely to spout off horrible conspiracy theories and assume all conservatives are backwater inbreds as anyone else. That bias is supremely real, and it's not because scientists have a magical, rational filter against propaganda.

mhneu 8y ago
I suggest reading Mann and Ornstein on the intellectual foundations behind modern US conservativism. They are both historians of politics and 20 years ago were considered supremely centrist and above the fray. What they say about (American) conservatism is sobering. Another good source is Josh Greene’s book on Bannon. That book describes how Bannon used GOP billionaire money (Mercer) to intentionally try to radicalize young tech-savvy men for the conservative cause. Bannon realized (and Prager around the same time) that with some propaganda he could persuade young mostly-white men to vote for the pro-billionaire agenda of the Republicans. I won’t say more here to avoid getting into politics on HN. But check out those sources for more info. —- On the the square root phenomenon, I wonder whether this arises due to the experience required to be very productive at creative work. Factory workers have little ability to be twice as productive as their peers. But the best salespeople and programmers can easily be many times as productive as at the entry-level. There’s a nonlinear function of experience and skills. I bet one could build some automata/stat mech type models of this. (And it’s not even clear you need to care about interactions). See if nonlinearities in productivity as a function of experience (and as importantly, luck- and maybe talent) hold in soft fields and creative fields.