The intellectual dark web

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I disagree. I think we need more public intellectuals, and we need to knock down the boundaries erected between fields and subjects. The notion that you can't talk about gender in society unless you have a PhD in Gender Studies, or about Russian Literature unless you have a PhD in Russian Literature, is one of the biggest factors in the alienation of the Canadian public - including the educated Canadian public - from academia and intellectual culture. Intelligent people should be publicly discoursing about every topic under the sun.

You're missing the point, Cliff. I have no issues with people speaking on a variety of subjects outside their field of expertise. What I do take issue with is them not acknowledging that they're a bit out of their depth and then proceeding to spread information that is incorrect, as Peterson has done on a number of issues.

And I haven't noticed this charge being levelled against beloved figures on the left. David Suzuki has been carrying on for decades about subjects far outside his background in zoology and genetics. Naomi Klein is a university dropout, and the Canadian media gives her a platform to pontificate about everything from global trade to climate change.

I believe I did so in this very thread or another one regarding Peterson. I also consider Klein to be dangerous in much the same way I do Peterson. Hell, if you want recent historical examples of this on the left, go back to someone like Rachel Carson and the damage she caused by being taken as an authority on something she clearly knew little about.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

So, the first quote there is a good example of a tactic used in a hit piece. It's deliberately cast in a light meant to make Peterson sound like a crazy person, through the narrative the author put together about him up in the middle of the night googling bikini photos. It then doesn't bother to explain what he meant by the seven-or-so quoted words, or why he thinks it's a problem. To be clear, I think his explanation would probably be crazy, but it's omitted because it doesn't matter to the author, whose purpose is to smear the guy.

I think that's in the reader's interpretation because that's not how I viewed it.

Second paragraph, you have several claims there. First, sexual assault is a consequence of the decline of traditional marriage. That's not actually a quote from the guy - does it represent his views?

Yes it is. It's paraphrasing a tweet from Peterson but it is essentially what he believes, and from what I understand similar wording shows up in his new book (I haven't read it so I'm not treating that as gospel.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/...81541849522176

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That "paraphrase" changes the meaning of the statement (which is presumably why it was paraphrased rather than directly quoted, given that they're both roughly the same length). What I meant when I say I doubt it represents his views is that if you were to sit him down and put to him this question: "true or false: sexual assault is a consequence of the decline of traditional marriage", his short answer would almost certainly be "false". If you're summarizing someone's position in a way they wouldn't sign on to, you're not treating them fairly or honestly.

Again, I suspect that he would actually say "no, but", and have a longer answer about how societies where traditional marriage is stronger have less of this sort of thing, or that there's some link between people who don't get married and people who are more likely to be like Louis CK, and you could then take issue with those points and explain why you might disagree with them. But again, that's not what the author of the article is trying to do in this case.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That "paraphrase" changes the meaning of the statement (which is presumably why it was paraphrased rather than directly quoted, given that they're both roughly the same length). What I meant when I say I doubt it represents his views is that if you were to sit him down and put to him this question: "true or false: sexual assault is a consequence of the decline of traditional marriage", his short answer would almost certainly be "false". If you're summarizing someone's position in a way they wouldn't sign on to, you're not treating them fairly or honestly.

I think that's you being charitable and giving the guy the benefit of the doubt. If you want to distill that tweet down to its central thesis, then it is essentially that the rise in sexual assault is a result of sex not being enshrined within marriage. You and I both know that's complete hogwash.

Again, I suspect that he would actually say "no, but", and have a longer answer about how societies where traditional marriage is stronger have less of this sort of thing, or that there's some link between people who don't get married and people who are more likely to be like Louis CK, and you could then take issue with those points and explain why you might disagree with them. But again, that's not what the author of the article is trying to do in this case.

Again, what you suspect is irrelevant. What we have are the man's words, which he could have walked back at any time or chosen to elaborate on but did not. It's also a pretty absurd take considering more than a few of the men accused are or were married at the time the incidents occurred.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It's also clearly absurd because anyone with a brain realizes that in societies with extremely strong traditional marriage institutions, now and throughout history, there was still plenty of sexual assault and sexual harassment. And because I don't think Peterson is a total ####ing moron (which is a different thing from having some batcrap loony views), I'm confident that he knows that, and would therefore not agree with the clearly absurd view you've attributed to him. So you're right that I'm being charitable, but I think for good reason.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think that's you being charitable and giving the guy the benefit of the doubt. If you want to distill that tweet down to its central thesis, then it is essentially that the rise in sexual assault is a result of sex not being enshrined within marriage. You and I both know that's complete hogwash.

I don't think that's what the tweet says at all. I think its suggesting that casual sexual relationships and a lack of understanding that partners would typically have in a marriage, result in more murkiness about consent and sexual boundaries (between the partners). Which is probably true.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's also clearly absurd because anyone with a brain realizes that in societies with extremely strong traditional marriage institutions, now and throughout history, there was still plenty of sexual assault and sexual harassment. And because I don't think Peterson is a total ####ing moron (which is a different thing from having some batcrap loony views), I'm confident that he knows that, and would therefore not agree with the clearly absurd view you've attributed to him. So you're right that I'm being charitable, but I think for good reason.

Again, he's had the opportunity to walk it back and elaborate on it and from what I understand of the book (based I think on the article you posted) he's chosen to double-down, so I'm not going to give him benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by Igottago

I don't think that's what the tweet says at all. I think its suggesting that casual sexual relationships and a lack of understanding that partners would typically have in a marriage, result in more murkiness about consent and sexual boundaries (between the partners). Which is probably true.

This is completely grasping at straws. There's no way you could possibly discern that from the words in the tweet, and it's pretty nonsensical and problematic given the context of what he was tweeting about.

[rubecube]

Anyways I won't beat this point to death, but I do tend to believe after watching a number of interviews, Youtube videos, reading articles written by the man and following his online persona that Peterson is more of a great salesman and self-promoter than profound intellectual. I'm certainly open to having my opinion changed if anyone wants to point me in the direction of any of his work that they believe is profound but at this point I think he's found an audience of easy marks and is capitalizing on it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Again, he's had the opportunity to walk it back and elaborate on it and from what I understand of the book (based I think on the article you posted) he's chosen to double-down, so I'm not going to give him benefit of the doubt.

I don't know what else Peterson said on that topic to elaborate on the tweet, as I don't follow him on twitter or anything, but I don't think Lindsay had read the new book when he wrote that (I gather he'd been writing the article for a while and the book is a pretty new release). But maybe you're referring to an older book. I haven't read any of them either, so I don't feel like I can comment on what's in them, but I've heard him talk a bit in longer format interviews and have a pretty good guess about what he thinks on these topics - just as I have a pretty good idea of what some posters are going to say about a topic from their previous postings.

But anyway, I'm not particularly surprised by this answer, because you already think he's basically evil. You're happy with an interpretation that confirms that view, despite others being available. People don't realize how strong confirmation bias is - you can't set it aside even if you're actively trying to, and you don't seem to be trying, likely for the same reason.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

But anyway, I'm not particularly surprised by this answer, because you already think he's basically evil. You're happy with an interpretation that confirms that view, despite others being available. People don't realize how strong confirmation bias is - you can't set it aside even if you're actively trying to, and you don't seem to be trying, likely for the same reason.

Taking his words at face value means I think he's evil? Okay then.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is completely grasping at straws. There's no way you could possibly discern that from the words in the tweet, and it's pretty nonsensical and problematic given the context of what he was tweeting about.

Its not grasping at straws because I've heard him elaborate on similar topics before, so I think I can reasonably assume what he's trying to get at. That's the problem with twitter however, its limited by characters. So there's no way to sum up his opinion on the matter just by reading a tweet and presenting it as some type of evidence of his overall viewpoint.

And if you're right about his opinion on it (which I highly doubt)...well there is one topic that he could be out to lunch on. Does that discredit everything else he says? Do you have to agree 100% with someone on every issue in order to think their work has any value worthy of public attention?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Its not grasping at straws because I've heard him elaborate on similar topics before, so I think I can reasonably assume what he's trying to get at. That's the problem with twitter however, its limited by characters. So there's no way to sum up his opinion on the matter just by reading a tweet and presenting it as some type of evidence of his overall viewpoint.

Okay, can you point me in the direction of material that contains this elaboration? I'm happy to take my opinion on him back if he has but I don't think it's my job to seek that out when he's the one who originally made a vague and ridiculous assertion.

And if you're right about his opinion on it (which I highly doubt)...well there is one topic that he could be out to lunch on. Does that discredit everything else he says? Do you have to agree 100% with someone on every issue in order to think their work has any value worthy of public attention?

Not at all, but it seems that many of his supporters work in the opposite direction. They assume that because he's an expert in psychology and has some opinions on free speech that jive with their own, that he's suddenly an authority on a variety of other topics. Peterson even seems to believe this himself.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Anyways I won't beat this point to death, but I do tend to believe after watching a number of interviews, Youtube videos, reading articles written by the man and following his online persona that Peterson is more of a great salesman and self-promoter than profound intellectual. I'm certainly open to having my opinion changed if anyone wants to point me in the direction of any of his work that they believe is profound but at this point I think he's found an audience of easy marks and is capitalizing on it.

On this point, I agree 100%. I would add storyteller to it as I think that's the primary way he sells his stuff. He isn't any great intellectual. He hasn't really introduced anything new to the world, just communicated a lot of ideas that already existed in a more digestible package.

This doesn't make one a snake oil salesman though.

Originally Posted by rubecube

I can spend 5 minutes on Google and "reveal" that homeopathy "works" for a substantial group of people. That doesn't mean its peddlers aren't hucksters.

What works means for medicine and homeopathy is completely different than what works means in terms of helping people sort out and improve their lives. The one is about banishing an illness and making people feel better, and the other is about helping people navigate the world in a fulfilling and productive way. The long term effects of Peterson's advice is yet to be seen, but in the short term, it seems he's making a difference.

https://twitter.com/user/status/928981541849522176


As for Peterson's tweet above, I'm still not sure what he meant by that. It seems given the limited context that he is referring to the risks of being accused of assault are higher if you have sex out of marriage (probably true), not that sexual assault rates are high if you have sex out of marriage.

Either way, it seems that this tweet is referring to something obviously false; the idea that sex was traditionally confined to marriage to preserve one's reputation and/or reduce the risk of sexual assault. These are both obviously not the case as marriage throughout almost all of history was about successfully raising children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage provides a decent high level summary of the history of marriage.

[Red Slinger]

Why would someone who has publicly claimed concern for how his comments are perceived make such an ambiguous tweet?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

As for Peterson's tweet above, I'm still not sure what he meant by that. It seems given the limited context that he is referring to the risks of being accused of assault are higher if you have sex out of marriage (probably true), not that sexual assault rates are high if you have sex out of marriage.

Yeah, it's just a bizarre assertion. A) it's hard to know if that's even true given that spousal rape wasn't considered a crime for a very long period of time so it would be pretty hard to gather accurate statistics on it, and B) that a traditional marriage would somehow be better at preventing sexual assault than a modern cohabitation or common-law relationship. Also, in the context of the celebrity cases, many of these incidents occurred in the workplace and were committed by married men, so I'm really not sure how traditional marriage would have prevented that. Just seems like a very roundabout way to get to a victim-blaming position.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Igottago

And if you're right about his opinion on it (which I highly doubt)...well there is one topic that he could be out to lunch on. Does that discredit everything else he says? Do you have to agree 100% with someone on every issue in order to think their work has any value worthy of public attention?

I don’t think you have to 100% agree with them to value their work, but you have to ensure you’re valuing the work that is valuable, and not giving them a blank cheque for credibility.

It also works in the positive and negative. Even looking at the article, it’s fine to view it as a hit piece, and it may be that, but it doesn’t discount the information contained within. It’s the same thing Peterson supports complain about, just trying to discredit the messanger instead of the viewing the information for what it’s worth.

Just as Peterson’s knowledge and insight is worthy of reverence in some circles, it’s not in others, and it’s important to recognise where those circles fall. It’s convenient to give Peterson blanket credit to talk about anything and everything as an intellectual, but that doesn’t mean every thought is going to be very intellectual.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Why would someone who has publicly claimed concern for how his comments are perceived make such an ambiguous tweet?

Speculation of course, but if it gets taken out of context he gets to play the victim and claim he's under assault again from the fanatical left, which plays well with his supporters.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Speculation of course, but if it gets taken out of context he gets to play the victim and claim he's under assault again from the fanatical left, which plays well with his supporters.

He doesn't really do that though. I've yet to hear him claim he's a victim; He spends very little of his overall time talking about how people treat him, and when he does, he usually says that he receives basically no hate mail. He talks about how people attack him at times, but presents it more as though the people accusing him of positions he doesn't hold are victims of identity politics instead of how he is a victim of their misrepresentation. I think he considers himself a benefactor of it (See his quip about monetizing social justice). He's good enough in interviews to avoid being victimized by tactics like the ones used on Channel 4 and has a large enough base of supporters to severely limit the effects of the various hit pieces about him.

Rather, he tends to go on about how you have to be strong and tell the truth, something that definitely plays well with his fans.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

He doesn't really do that though. I've yet to hear him claim he's a victim; He spends very little of his overall time talking about how people treat him, and when he does, he usually says that he receives basically no hate mail. He talks about how people attach him at times, but presents it more as though the people accusing him of positions he doesn't hold are victims of identity politics instead of how he is a victim of their misrepresentation. I think he considers himself a benefactor of it (See his quip about monetizing social justice). He's good enough in interviews to avoid being victimized by tactics like the ones used on Channel 4 and has a large enough base of supporters to severely limit the effects of the various hit pieces about him.

Fair enough. I don't mind walking that back a bit. Would it be more fair to suggest that he posts something incendiary like to generate a reaction from the left because it's generally been good business for him?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The other possibility is that he's tweeted about ten thousand times (not counting replies) and a few of them are bound to come across as quite crazy, especially given his baseline level of kookiness.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Speculation of course, but if it gets taken out of context he gets to play the victim and claim he's under assault again from the fanatical left, which plays well with his supporters.

Highly doubt it. He actively advocates for people to take responsibility for their own lives. Doesn't strike me as one who is motivated by sympathy from others.