7 ms·

> Academia has had their chance Oh, so what should we go to now in order to try to expand our knowledge about this? What are you suggesting?

Frondo 8y ago
This is always the implicit question, and I'm guessing the answer is scientism -- material that has the form of academic product, but isn't academic. Like Jordon Peterson videos or a lot of the scientific racism stuff on Youtube. It's draped in the language of knowing, but it's purely emotional material; stuff that makes you feel good, and makes you feel smart for feeling right. (I also think the desire to drape our tribal impulses in scientific form comes from society prizing smarts for so very, very long, but that's another story.)
- unabst 8y ago
  Jordan Peterson is as scientific as a social scientist gets. He cites papers and describes the work of past scientists and his premises are evidence driven. He is a professor; a professional academic. He has his opinions, positions and motives just like anyone else, but is open about them. If anything he is a rock star lecturer that exemplifies how informative, accurate, sincere, progressive, intimate, and inspiring science can be. He helps people for a living as a psychologist and a lecturer. If he offends you then you either have issues or don't understand him or both, but he would gladly engage with you either way. Most that disagree with him disagree with the science, which puts them in the same boat as climate change deniers, of which there are plenty voicing their alternate facts online. But their voice doesn't validate their claims. Science is not a democracy.
  - gboudrias 8y ago
    > If he offends you then you either have issues or don't understand him or both, but he would gladly engage with you either way. Hmmm no we can also think he uses mostly weak papers with dodgy methodologies and over-generalizes the conclusions. Not all scientists within a field agree with any given scientist of that field, that would be ludicrous.
    - unabst 8y ago
      How do you know he uses mostly weak papers? That is an overgeneralization. And why would he? Which papers should he have chosen? And I never said all scientists agree. Typical straw man. But what I will say is there are plenty of climate change deniers that claim to be scientists.
      - gboudrias 8y ago
        You literally said if he offends me I have issues or don't understand him. This disregards the notion that you can understand someone as a fellow scientist and be offended by their indefensible interpretations. Sorry but it's not all black or white, and you describing the issue as such makes you more of a zealot than a scientist.
        unabst 8y ago
        Why would you be offended by the science of a scientist? Let alone their opinion? Why does he offend you so much? I would put this person in the "has issues" category. Not saying that is bad. But it doesn't make you right. Instead, we should focus on the issue. What about what offends you so much? Btw there are plenty of videos of him confronting exactly this. Nothing is indefensible. Challenge him all you want. His views are his views. Most of his lectures are about other people's work. When he draws conclusions his logic is sound and his premises are transparent. Talk, think, debate. Why hate? He continues to help so many people.
  - cr1895 8y ago
    The effusive praise bordering on reverence of Peterson always strikes me a bit strange. He is an exemplary rock star lecturer-scientist and if you aren't on Team Peterson you've got issues or you misunderstand or if you disagree with him you probably are pretty much a science denialist. A bit excessive, no?
    - unabst 8y ago
      Excessive maybe, but not false, and only to counter his blatant miscategorization to which I was responding. I underestimated the support for JDP here, which is my bad but I am happy to defend him. My mother is an anthropologist. The social sciences are flawed in many ways but JDP fully acknowledges and navigates this. If anyone has better ideas or conclusions than he does please share. He wants to know. We all want to know. But if there is one thing a man answering his calling deserves is respect.
      - cr1895 8y ago
        Is it really about his work, or is it about glorifying Peterson himself?
        unabst 8y ago
        For other's it may be, but I was responding to a blatant miscategorization which was attacking his identity, not his work. And this is just how I write. If dissing someone is allowed then why isn't praising them? And praising them well? Because I exaggerated? But did I? He continues to help millions of people. Can't say that about many people. Regarding his work/words: He's right about the biological differences between men and women. He's right about social hierarchies and power structures being inevitable. He's right about the government's overreach on speech being dangerous. He's right about proper discourse on any matter being uncomfortable. He's right about the value of honesty and integrity. He's right about ways to piece your life and yourself back together. And by right I don't mean binary true or false, because that isn't how science works. By right, I mean the most accurate knowledge we currently have on the topic that could be usefully applied to a problem at hand compared to other less accurate knowledge that is already being applied to problems at hand. Seeing this is why he stood up, and many stood up with him. You can't be a quack and help so many people or be right about so many things. And at the end of the day he's just a lecturer that's really really good at his job -- at engaging his students and sharing the wealth of knowledge that already exists. And yes, using that knowledge to point out why you are wrong does make him offensive to a lot of people. You don't have to be one of them. And yes, he has turned activist. You don't have to turn into one, by why not? But if you have, then why against? He isn't anti-scientific. He just isn't. That's a blatantly false claim.
  - Frondo 8y ago
    If he is such a stellar scientist, I'm sure there are quite a few other scientists building off his work -- I'm sure he's advancing some fields of study, if he is as sharp as you say. Is there a list of people building on the work of Jordan Peterson? I'd like to see it.
    - unabst 8y ago
      https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en See it. You could have just Google it.
      - Frondo 8y ago
        You did look at that list carefully, right? He's listed as first author on three of the first 20 entries, and one of those is a pop-sci book, not an academic paper. Of the other two, one is from 17 years ago and the other is from 29 years ago. This is not the publication record of an influential social scientist.
        unabst 8y ago
        Well, actually this is the publication record of an influential social scientist. JDP is the most influential social scientist of our times, bar none. This is his publication record. That makes this the publication record of an influential social scientist. Does that offend you? Knocking him for collaborating is ignorant and disingenuous. Scientists collaborate. His record shows he is a real scientist. It doesn't have to show he is the best or that he deserves a Nobel Prize. At this point, he's probably a better candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize if anything, but this only goes to show what he's been working on lately, which is more activism than scientific research. More Neil deGrasse Tyson than Einstein, but that doesn't make Neil a fake scientist. JDP's last book he did write for a broader audience. Great move. Even I read it. And he brought with him the scientists and the research that otherwise would not have reached his audience. His book is maybe 75% work of other scientists, 20% story telling, and 5% what he draws from it. Basically his 12 rules. He demonstrates how to draw meaning and meaningful conclusions rationally, with well grounded premises. If you have low tolerance for the more abstract genre of ancient story analysis, then skip it. Or maybe there is some truth to it? Decide for yourself. Did you read his book? Fine if you didn't but I wouldn't claim to understand him if I hadn't. Maybe you have issues with him, which is fine, but again, that is a separate matter than the substance of his lectures. Which are all highly specific by the way. So to say they're all based on weak papers or that he's selling snake oil is an immediate tell that, again, you either don't understand him or have other issues/motives. (Thanks HN for not letting me reply, claiming I'm posting too fast, when clearly I'm not. Not sure how you're suppose to have a conversation.)
- x122212 8y ago
  The irony is thick here. All of this can be said about social sciences and gender studies.
jolopy 8y ago
Let's try the Eleatics next, or any of the other presocratics.
bughunter12 8y ago
How about defunding the fields that study "personal life choices"? The quoted part seems to have been missed by the lynch mob.

Frondo 8y ago

This is always the implicit question, and I'm guessing the answer is scientism -- material that has the form of academic product, but isn't academic. Like Jordon Peterson videos or a lot of the scientific racism stuff on Youtube. It's draped in the language of knowing, but it's purely emotional material; stuff that makes you feel good, and makes you feel smart for feeling right. (I also think the desire to drape our tribal impulses in scientific form comes from society prizing smarts for so very, very long, but that's another story.)

unabst 8y ago
Jordan Peterson is as scientific as a social scientist gets. He cites papers and describes the work of past scientists and his premises are evidence driven. He is a professor; a professional academic. He has his opinions, positions and motives just like anyone else, but is open about them. If anything he is a rock star lecturer that exemplifies how informative, accurate, sincere, progressive, intimate, and inspiring science can be. He helps people for a living as a psychologist and a lecturer. If he offends you then you either have issues or don't understand him or both, but he would gladly engage with you either way. Most that disagree with him disagree with the science, which puts them in the same boat as climate change deniers, of which there are plenty voicing their alternate facts online. But their voice doesn't validate their claims. Science is not a democracy.
- gboudrias 8y ago
  > If he offends you then you either have issues or don't understand him or both, but he would gladly engage with you either way. Hmmm no we can also think he uses mostly weak papers with dodgy methodologies and over-generalizes the conclusions. Not all scientists within a field agree with any given scientist of that field, that would be ludicrous.
  - unabst 8y ago
    How do you know he uses mostly weak papers? That is an overgeneralization. And why would he? Which papers should he have chosen? And I never said all scientists agree. Typical straw man. But what I will say is there are plenty of climate change deniers that claim to be scientists.
    - gboudrias 8y ago
      You literally said if he offends me I have issues or don't understand him. This disregards the notion that you can understand someone as a fellow scientist and be offended by their indefensible interpretations. Sorry but it's not all black or white, and you describing the issue as such makes you more of a zealot than a scientist.
      - unabst 8y ago
        Why would you be offended by the science of a scientist? Let alone their opinion? Why does he offend you so much? I would put this person in the "has issues" category. Not saying that is bad. But it doesn't make you right. Instead, we should focus on the issue. What about what offends you so much? Btw there are plenty of videos of him confronting exactly this. Nothing is indefensible. Challenge him all you want. His views are his views. Most of his lectures are about other people's work. When he draws conclusions his logic is sound and his premises are transparent. Talk, think, debate. Why hate? He continues to help so many people.
- cr1895 8y ago
  The effusive praise bordering on reverence of Peterson always strikes me a bit strange. He is an exemplary rock star lecturer-scientist and if you aren't on Team Peterson you've got issues or you misunderstand or if you disagree with him you probably are pretty much a science denialist. A bit excessive, no?
  - unabst 8y ago
    Excessive maybe, but not false, and only to counter his blatant miscategorization to which I was responding. I underestimated the support for JDP here, which is my bad but I am happy to defend him. My mother is an anthropologist. The social sciences are flawed in many ways but JDP fully acknowledges and navigates this. If anyone has better ideas or conclusions than he does please share. He wants to know. We all want to know. But if there is one thing a man answering his calling deserves is respect.
    - cr1895 8y ago
      Is it really about his work, or is it about glorifying Peterson himself?
      - unabst 8y ago
        For other's it may be, but I was responding to a blatant miscategorization which was attacking his identity, not his work. And this is just how I write. If dissing someone is allowed then why isn't praising them? And praising them well? Because I exaggerated? But did I? He continues to help millions of people. Can't say that about many people. Regarding his work/words: He's right about the biological differences between men and women. He's right about social hierarchies and power structures being inevitable. He's right about the government's overreach on speech being dangerous. He's right about proper discourse on any matter being uncomfortable. He's right about the value of honesty and integrity. He's right about ways to piece your life and yourself back together. And by right I don't mean binary true or false, because that isn't how science works. By right, I mean the most accurate knowledge we currently have on the topic that could be usefully applied to a problem at hand compared to other less accurate knowledge that is already being applied to problems at hand. Seeing this is why he stood up, and many stood up with him. You can't be a quack and help so many people or be right about so many things. And at the end of the day he's just a lecturer that's really really good at his job -- at engaging his students and sharing the wealth of knowledge that already exists. And yes, using that knowledge to point out why you are wrong does make him offensive to a lot of people. You don't have to be one of them. And yes, he has turned activist. You don't have to turn into one, by why not? But if you have, then why against? He isn't anti-scientific. He just isn't. That's a blatantly false claim.
- Frondo 8y ago
  If he is such a stellar scientist, I'm sure there are quite a few other scientists building off his work -- I'm sure he's advancing some fields of study, if he is as sharp as you say. Is there a list of people building on the work of Jordan Peterson? I'd like to see it.
  - unabst 8y ago
    https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en See it. You could have just Google it.
    - Frondo 8y ago
      You did look at that list carefully, right? He's listed as first author on three of the first 20 entries, and one of those is a pop-sci book, not an academic paper. Of the other two, one is from 17 years ago and the other is from 29 years ago. This is not the publication record of an influential social scientist.
      - unabst 8y ago
        Well, actually this is the publication record of an influential social scientist. JDP is the most influential social scientist of our times, bar none. This is his publication record. That makes this the publication record of an influential social scientist. Does that offend you? Knocking him for collaborating is ignorant and disingenuous. Scientists collaborate. His record shows he is a real scientist. It doesn't have to show he is the best or that he deserves a Nobel Prize. At this point, he's probably a better candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize if anything, but this only goes to show what he's been working on lately, which is more activism than scientific research. More Neil deGrasse Tyson than Einstein, but that doesn't make Neil a fake scientist. JDP's last book he did write for a broader audience. Great move. Even I read it. And he brought with him the scientists and the research that otherwise would not have reached his audience. His book is maybe 75% work of other scientists, 20% story telling, and 5% what he draws from it. Basically his 12 rules. He demonstrates how to draw meaning and meaningful conclusions rationally, with well grounded premises. If you have low tolerance for the more abstract genre of ancient story analysis, then skip it. Or maybe there is some truth to it? Decide for yourself. Did you read his book? Fine if you didn't but I wouldn't claim to understand him if I hadn't. Maybe you have issues with him, which is fine, but again, that is a separate matter than the substance of his lectures. Which are all highly specific by the way. So to say they're all based on weak papers or that he's selling snake oil is an immediate tell that, again, you either don't understand him or have other issues/motives. (Thanks HN for not letting me reply, claiming I'm posting too fast, when clearly I'm not. Not sure how you're suppose to have a conversation.)
x122212 8y ago
The irony is thick here. All of this can be said about social sciences and gender studies.

jolopy 8y ago

Let's try the Eleatics next, or any of the other presocratics.

bughunter12 8y ago

How about defunding the fields that study "personal life choices"? The quoted part seems to have been missed by the lynch mob.