3 ms·

I listened to Jordan Peterson and what he was talking about was not particularly radical - instead of a modern, rational, scientific, agnostic view of the world

I listened to Jordan Peterson and what he was talking about was not particularly radical - instead of a modern, rational, scientific, agnostic view of the world he had more pre-Enlightenment Dark Ages notions about the Bible, the supernatural and such. As premier learning institutions aim to be devoted to rationality, the scientific method etc., it's not a conspiracy keeping him away, he's just preaching things they are not about. I'm sure he could go to some backwoods corner of Arkansas or Kentucky or something where people would be more receptive to these ideas about the supernatural. It's also putting a number of people into the same boat. People may agree or disagree with Steven Pinker about various topics, but at least he makes rational arguments. Search the New York Times and he is treated as an intellectual worthy of respect, although points may be right or wrong. I don't see him being excluded from anything. If anything, the nurture over nature argument is what is blocked from the establishment discourse.

s3r3nity 8y ago
Have you looked at JP's background or work in any way? He's a clinical psychologist + professor of psychology at a pretty reputable university (U of Toronto) with decades of experience, including an active clinical practice (until 2017 I think.) I don't claim to have read _everything_ he has written, but claiming that he doesn't base his arguments in a rational, scientific grounding is a real stretch at best, and disingenuous at worst.
- pryce 8y ago
  I've worked in Clinical Psychology and one of my consultants kept a copy of a demented new-age 'channelling spirits' book "Seth Speaks" by Jane Roberts [1] on her desk and was adamant that I read it. My point is that "whether someone bases their arguments on rational, scientific grounding" cannot be determined by looking at their qualifications or their employment, especially when they are speaking outside of their field. Jordan Peterson's most famous claims - firstly about a conspiracy of Postmodern Marxism (which is a non-sequitur to anyone who has even a basic understanding of postmodernism or marxism) and the claims underlying his rise to internet fame - fearmongering about C-16 bill including being extremely misleading about the specifics of it - are absolutely not based on "rational, scientific grounding", and his CV doesn't change this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Material
  - espeed 8y ago
    "The metaphoric mind is a maverick. It is as wild and unruly as a child. It follows us doggedly and plagues us with its presence as we wander the contrived corridors of rationality. It is a metaphoric link with the unknown called religion that causes us to build cathedrals — and the very cathedrals are built with rational, logical plans. When some personal crisis or the bewildering chaos of everyday life closes in on us, we often rush to worship the rationally-planned cathedral and ignore the religion. Albert Einstein called the intuitive or metaphoric mind a sacred gift. He added that the rational mind was a faithful servant. It is paradoxical that in the context of modern life we have begun to worship the servant and defile the divine." https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/09/18/intuitive-mind/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/09/18/intuitive-mind/ BTW: Are you trying to associate Professor Peterson's work with the Seth Material?
    - pryce 8y ago
      My point was not a claim that there is no such thing as spirituality or value in intuition, or even past lives, something I don't pretend to know. My point was: that the terms "rational & scientifically grounded" are features best ascertained by examination of an argument itself, not as traits that become applied to a person as a whole and then inherently imbue each claim that this person then makes from that point onward. There exist people with almost identical "qualifications and positions" that Jordan B Peterson has who demonstrably make arguments that are not "rational & scientifically grounded", therefore these "qualifications and positions" are at best a poor marker for the properties or qualities we are seeking, and cannot be the quality itself.

s3r3nity 8y ago

Have you looked at JP's background or work in any way? He's a clinical psychologist + professor of psychology at a pretty reputable university (U of Toronto) with decades of experience, including an active clinical practice (until 2017 I think.) I don't claim to have read _everything_ he has written, but claiming that he doesn't base his arguments in a rational, scientific grounding is a real stretch at best, and disingenuous at worst.

pryce 8y ago
I've worked in Clinical Psychology and one of my consultants kept a copy of a demented new-age 'channelling spirits' book "Seth Speaks" by Jane Roberts [1] on her desk and was adamant that I read it. My point is that "whether someone bases their arguments on rational, scientific grounding" cannot be determined by looking at their qualifications or their employment, especially when they are speaking outside of their field. Jordan Peterson's most famous claims - firstly about a conspiracy of Postmodern Marxism (which is a non-sequitur to anyone who has even a basic understanding of postmodernism or marxism) and the claims underlying his rise to internet fame - fearmongering about C-16 bill including being extremely misleading about the specifics of it - are absolutely not based on "rational, scientific grounding", and his CV doesn't change this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Material
- espeed 8y ago
  "The metaphoric mind is a maverick. It is as wild and unruly as a child. It follows us doggedly and plagues us with its presence as we wander the contrived corridors of rationality. It is a metaphoric link with the unknown called religion that causes us to build cathedrals — and the very cathedrals are built with rational, logical plans. When some personal crisis or the bewildering chaos of everyday life closes in on us, we often rush to worship the rationally-planned cathedral and ignore the religion. Albert Einstein called the intuitive or metaphoric mind a sacred gift. He added that the rational mind was a faithful servant. It is paradoxical that in the context of modern life we have begun to worship the servant and defile the divine." https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/09/18/intuitive-mind/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/09/18/intuitive-mind/ BTW: Are you trying to associate Professor Peterson's work with the Seth Material?
  - pryce 8y ago
    My point was not a claim that there is no such thing as spirituality or value in intuition, or even past lives, something I don't pretend to know. My point was: that the terms "rational & scientifically grounded" are features best ascertained by examination of an argument itself, not as traits that become applied to a person as a whole and then inherently imbue each claim that this person then makes from that point onward. There exist people with almost identical "qualifications and positions" that Jordan B Peterson has who demonstrably make arguments that are not "rational & scientifically grounded", therefore these "qualifications and positions" are at best a poor marker for the properties or qualities we are seeking, and cannot be the quality itself.