4 ms·

I am also curious about the allusion to Peterson. I am not aware of any huge societal contribution he has made beyond encouraging dueling op-eds. Certainly he h

by majos 8y ago

I am also curious about the allusion to Peterson. I am not aware of any huge societal contribution he has made beyond encouraging dueling op-eds. Certainly he has a devoted fan base, but I essentially never hear about him in real life. I'm not weighing in on how good or bad his ideas are. But I see way more of the blockchain in the world than I do (knowingly) of Peterson. What am I missing?

WaxProlix 8y ago
I think you've mostly got it. AFAIK, other academics and such in Peterson's field(s) find his work mostly mediocre to laughable, so my best guess is that the person in question falls into the "avid fan" camp.
- atomical 8y ago
  Cowen wouldn't be funding someone like Peterson for their academic credentials. Vitalik Buterin wasn't a heavy weight in academia when Peter Thiel took a chance on him.
nexus2045 8y ago
I have thoroughly consumed a lot of Peterson content. I can vouch that aside from the political controversy, that he has a powerful message for young men: to find the meaning in life through responsibility and sacrifice, to go out there and make something of themselves. I have no idea why that it is "controversial" to be told to strive for something, and I don't see much alternatives other than self-help books. There are much more troubled, aimless people out there than you think, because if you've lived a fairly decent life yourself, you almost never come into contact with the guys that aren't doing so well and are in need of such a message. He's almost filling in as a father figure for young men where self-help did not suffice. The opposing side likes to attempt to character assassinate him by labelling as a right-wing bigot, but have never bothered to really listen to his message while holding the empathy that more unfortunate people DO need a message like that.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  To me, his controversial argument is the idea that the academy is infested with communists who think you should be thrown in jail for using the wrong pronouns, and that an entire generation of college students is taking women's studies classes wherein they are taught that the problem with the world is that men exist and that they aren't enough like women. And that in these leftist circles you're not allowed to talk about sexism perpetrated by muslim men. And a bunch of other such theories. Sure, all of that exists in various crappy people in obscure corners of academia. But he makes it out to be widespread, and he makes it out that no dissenting voices are allowed to exist on the left or in academia. Neither of which is true. But more troubling, there's a community of right wing pundits who use Peterson and his theories to justify total vilification of the left and academia in their entirety. The impression you get from Peterson is that no gender studies professor has ever done anything except hate traditional values and the people who love them. There are people out there making constructive criticisms of overzealous leftists. Peterson seems to be choosing a purely divisive path. You can tell because he never talks to or about anyone on the left with more moderate views. He only engages the center right and the radical left, because fundamentally his goal isn't to reform the left, it's to justify his own rightward shift in his personal politics.
  - auganov 8y ago
    I find the obsession with gender studies particularly funny coming from a psychology professor. Given his fav topics he could be a men's studies professor for all I'm concerned.
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    After the events of the past few years, I don't think it's tenable to cast the problems Peterson highlights as occasional and obscure. Look at FIRE's speech code analysis: most universities have administrative restrictions on free inquiry. Look at Heterodox Academy's work on ideological bias: social science is 90% left, with something like 30% (from memory) calling themselves "radical". Look at the current replication crisis, which arises in part from fabrication of ideologically convenient results. I simply cannot agree with your assertion that Peterson et al are cherry-picking and that academia is fundamentally sound. These pathologies are too common and too widespread not to constitute some kind of systemic issue. I find your arguments unconvincing. Instead, I believe that a correction is long overdue. Disciplines that reject reason, empiricism, and rigor, that claim all truths are equally valid, and that hold the only valid goal of pedagogy is tearing down power dynamics --- these are indoctrination, not inquiry, and the public should not fund this activity. > no dissenting voices are allowed to exist on the left or in academia Academia really does apply extreme social and political pressure to unorthodox thinkers. Look at the campaign against Rachel Fulton Brown. > use Peterson and his theories to justify It's become common lately to argue that we shouldn't acknowledge certain facts because unscrupulous people might use them to justify something bad. This position is not tenable. The truth always gets out, and when it does, those suppressing it lose all of their influence and credibility. It's far better to acknowledge facts and work with them.

by majos 8y ago

WaxProlix 8y ago

I think you've mostly got it. AFAIK, other academics and such in Peterson's field(s) find his work mostly mediocre to laughable, so my best guess is that the person in question falls into the "avid fan" camp.

atomical 8y ago
Cowen wouldn't be funding someone like Peterson for their academic credentials. Vitalik Buterin wasn't a heavy weight in academia when Peter Thiel took a chance on him.

nexus2045 8y ago

I have thoroughly consumed a lot of Peterson content. I can vouch that aside from the political controversy, that he has a powerful message for young men: to find the meaning in life through responsibility and sacrifice, to go out there and make something of themselves. I have no idea why that it is "controversial" to be told to strive for something, and I don't see much alternatives other than self-help books. There are much more troubled, aimless people out there than you think, because if you've lived a fairly decent life yourself, you almost never come into contact with the guys that aren't doing so well and are in need of such a message. He's almost filling in as a father figure for young men where self-help did not suffice. The opposing side likes to attempt to character assassinate him by labelling as a right-wing bigot, but have never bothered to really listen to his message while holding the empathy that more unfortunate people DO need a message like that.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
To me, his controversial argument is the idea that the academy is infested with communists who think you should be thrown in jail for using the wrong pronouns, and that an entire generation of college students is taking women's studies classes wherein they are taught that the problem with the world is that men exist and that they aren't enough like women. And that in these leftist circles you're not allowed to talk about sexism perpetrated by muslim men. And a bunch of other such theories. Sure, all of that exists in various crappy people in obscure corners of academia. But he makes it out to be widespread, and he makes it out that no dissenting voices are allowed to exist on the left or in academia. Neither of which is true. But more troubling, there's a community of right wing pundits who use Peterson and his theories to justify total vilification of the left and academia in their entirety. The impression you get from Peterson is that no gender studies professor has ever done anything except hate traditional values and the people who love them. There are people out there making constructive criticisms of overzealous leftists. Peterson seems to be choosing a purely divisive path. You can tell because he never talks to or about anyone on the left with more moderate views. He only engages the center right and the radical left, because fundamentally his goal isn't to reform the left, it's to justify his own rightward shift in his personal politics.
- auganov 8y ago
  I find the obsession with gender studies particularly funny coming from a psychology professor. Given his fav topics he could be a men's studies professor for all I'm concerned.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  After the events of the past few years, I don't think it's tenable to cast the problems Peterson highlights as occasional and obscure. Look at FIRE's speech code analysis: most universities have administrative restrictions on free inquiry. Look at Heterodox Academy's work on ideological bias: social science is 90% left, with something like 30% (from memory) calling themselves "radical". Look at the current replication crisis, which arises in part from fabrication of ideologically convenient results. I simply cannot agree with your assertion that Peterson et al are cherry-picking and that academia is fundamentally sound. These pathologies are too common and too widespread not to constitute some kind of systemic issue. I find your arguments unconvincing. Instead, I believe that a correction is long overdue. Disciplines that reject reason, empiricism, and rigor, that claim all truths are equally valid, and that hold the only valid goal of pedagogy is tearing down power dynamics --- these are indoctrination, not inquiry, and the public should not fund this activity. > no dissenting voices are allowed to exist on the left or in academia Academia really does apply extreme social and political pressure to unorthodox thinkers. Look at the campaign against Rachel Fulton Brown. > use Peterson and his theories to justify It's become common lately to argue that we shouldn't acknowledge certain facts because unscrupulous people might use them to justify something bad. This position is not tenable. The truth always gets out, and when it does, those suppressing it lose all of their influence and credibility. It's far better to acknowledge facts and work with them.