Pretty much the usual takedown of Peterson - vitriolic ridicule and condemnation not of what Peterson has actually said, but what the author is sure he really believes. When is a leftist foe of Peterson going to actually step up and debate the guy? Challenge his assertions with reason and empiricism? All we get are these smirking diatribes that are devoid of substantive criticism.
Or has genuine intellectual debate fallen out of fashion altogether in these febrile times?
The audience for an attack on the underlying assumptions of Petersons claims isn't very large and would not influence the Peterson followers at all. And likely does not entertain Peterson critics either. The problem with Peterson is more or less the appeal to natural fallacy. Without evidence or cherry picked evidence there is an underlying assumption that things used to be better and the way things were done historically was the correct way do to reasons. His work is like the Paleo diet.
So the article you would have to right and the level of accuracy you would have to right to avoid a the simpletons who follow him from latching on to stray words and the likely non-response from Peterson to a well reasoned attack leads to now reason to do it.
Peterson enjoys raising the lefts ire and responds when he gets it. It's how he keeps the Patreon money rolling in. The left plays right into his hand because that is what social media incentivizes. So you will never see the well reasoned logical takedown of Peterson because the work required is high, the audience who needs to here it won't listen, and the audience of the authors that do it prefer sensationalism.
Why should they? It's not like Peterson himself is providing much more than his own form of rhetoric. His lectures aren't exactly packed with statistics and empirical evidence.
This is correct. Having read 12 Rules, there’s little there beyond his own rhetoric. There’s no intellectual level with which anyone can really come at it.
Peterson heavily relies on rhetoric and lessons gleamed from dreams and religion. Much of rules play like well written tumblr posts, they sound like they should be fulfilling chapters that provide a well reasoned guide of the way the world should be, but they’re incredible empty.
It’s funny watching people using an appeal to authority to defend Peterson. “He’s an intellectual, so only intellectual criticism is worthy.” If you’ve read 12 rules, which I doubt many of his supporters who blindly defend him have, it’s not a very intellectual piece of literature.
At best, it’s “it’ll make you think.” But book shelves are lined with books that hold equal intellectual value from much less “intellectual” authors. If anything, Peterson’s desire to publish 12 rules is interesting. It’s empty enough to both appease even the dumbest of his followers, and at the same time invite the unintellectual criticism that galvanises his base. It makes the unintellectual feel intellectual, while angering them anytime others don’t take it seriously or discredit the validation they get from it.
It’s all very fascinating to watch.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I haven't read 12 Rules, and I'm no 'fan' of Peterson's. The basis of his popularity is his trenchant and articulate criticism of the illiberal left and identity politics. To date the, the only face-to-face opposition he gets on those grounds is hysterical students wailing and screaming, and, of course, the famous Channel 4 interview.
So why don't some of the professors who preach anti-Western, anti-liberal dogma step up and publicly debate the issues of politics driven by group vs individual identity, free speech vs controlled speech, intersectionality, etc? People like the professors at Laurier seem perfectly happy to bully students who dissent from their program in their private offices. Time to step out of the safe space of the Student Intersectional Trauma Centre and make their case in public.
There's strong public appetite for this sort of open dialogue, and tremendous resentment that the course of social policy is being steered by academics and their media allies without any public debate. Do these academics feel its beneath them to make their case to the wider public?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The problem with Peterson is more or less the appeal to natural fallacy.
And even that is sometimes questionable given his apparent lack of understanding of evolution. Or I guess he could actually understand evolution and be intentionally misinterpreting it for his own benefit.. I'm not sure which is worse.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Debate is about the worst way to examine someone's claims.
Debate is the best way to publicly contest conflicting ideas and proposals. And it's one of the foundations of the Enlightenment and liberal democracy.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Peterson enjoys raising the lefts ire and responds when he gets it. It's how he keeps the Patreon money rolling in. The left plays right into his hand because that is what social media incentivizes. So you will never see the well reasoned logical takedown of Peterson because the work required is high, the audience who needs to here it won't listen, and the audience of the authors that do it prefer sensationalism.
Speaking of the Enlightenment, here's an excellent discussion between Steven Pinker and Stephen Fry about Pinker's new book Enlightenment Now, and some of the politics surrounding the science of human nature.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Yeah, Pinker has pretty much been a consistently great voice for years, but his recent publicity tour for his book has brought him back into the spotlight, all to the good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
I haven't read 12 Rules, and I'm no 'fan' of Peterson's. The basis of his popularity is his trenchant and articulate criticism of the illiberal left and identity politics.
For some people it is. Others are drawn to his pseudo-Jungian views about what makes "the good life". I'd go so far as to say the people who are most into him are into him as a cultish life coach sort of figure, not as a public intellectual talking about politics. You have to remember, his opposition to a certain segment of the left is more or less instrumental; they're getting in the way of his message, so he must oppose them. But his message is still what matters to him.
Quote:
There's strong public appetite for this sort of open dialogue, and tremendous resentment that the course of social policy is being steered by academics and their media allies without any public debate. Do these academics feel its beneath them to make their case to the wider public?
It's not that, it's a matter of losing the high ground. For most people who subscribe to these politics, it's something sacred, something automatically true that if it's not totally obvious to you it must be because you're just not a good enough person. Truly good people would feel these injustices intuitively, and immediately recognize the light of truth revealed to them without needing any explanation. The moment you invite debate, you acknowledge that these ideas are up for debate, and that can't be, or the whole ideological structure falls apart. It would be like inviting someone to test the material composition of the Emperor's New Clothes.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
or more simply put, the right is defending things the left is taking away. I don't know how to combat that because the definition of conservative is to defend and the definition of liberalism is to be open to change.
In the end things always change for the good anyways so is the left pushing too hard too fast?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
It's not that, it's a matter of losing the high ground. For most people who subscribe to these politics, it's something sacred, something automatically true that if it's not totally obvious to you it must be because you're just not a good enough person. Truly good people would feel these injustices intuitively, and immediately recognize the light of truth revealed to them without needing any explanation. The moment you invite debate, you acknowledge that these ideas are up for debate, and that can't be, or the whole ideological structure falls apart. It would be like inviting someone to test the material composition of the Emperor's New Clothes.
Yes, that does seem to be case. Where are the identarian counterparts to Pinker, Peterson, Jonathan Haidt, Sam Harris, Bret Weinstein, and Richard Dawkins? Where are the lectures, interviews, and public debates where they make their cases?
Nowhere that I can see. There are all sorts of politics blogs where identarian columnists make simplistic moral judgements and opine snarkily. But where are the researchers? The academics? Where's the reasoned persuasion?
At this point, it seems you are exactly right - the people promoting this ideology believe they have found unshakeable, self-evident moral truths. They don't feel they need to persuade or argue their case any more than religious fundamentalists feel the need to be debate their beliefs with evolutionary biologists - people who are open to the Word will accept it in their hearts.
Which only shows how perilous it is that much our public policy and dialogue has been been shaped by an illiberal, quasi-religious belief system. And the biggest peril isn't that this belief system will take over all our institutions - I don't think it will, I think it is at or close to its high water mark. The danger is that the way the dogmatic beliefs of a minority of people had such a powerful and illiberal effect on public policy will deeply undermine public trust in elites and our institutions. You couldn't devise a better program to inflame populism if you tried.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Debate is the best way to publicly contest conflicting ideas and proposals. And it's one of the foundations of the Enlightenment and liberal democracy.
Most things are far too complex to do any justice to in a debate which is limited by short attention spans, easily subverted with rhetoric, and too dependant on the skill of the debater rather than the actual subject matter.
Heck discussion forums are superior to a verbal debate.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Yes, that does seem to be case. Where are the identarian counterparts to Pinker, Peterson, Jonathan Haidt, Sam Harris, Bret Weinstein, and Richard Dawkins? Where are the lectures, interviews, and public debates where they make their cases?
Nowhere that I can see. There are all sorts of politics blogs where identarian columnists make simplistic moral judgements and opine snarkily. But where are the researchers? The academics? Where's the reasoned persuasion?
At this point, it seems you are exactly right - the people promoting this ideology believe they have found unshakeable, self-evident moral truths. They don't feel they need to persuade or argue their case any more than religious fundamentalists feel the need to be debate their beliefs with evolutionary biologists - people who are open to the Word will accept it in their hearts.
Which only shows how perilous it is that much our public policy and dialogue has been been shaped by an illiberal, quasi-religious belief system. And the biggest peril isn't that this belief system will take over all our institutions - I don't think it will, I think it is at or close to its high water mark. The danger is that the way the dogmatic beliefs of a minority of people had such a powerful and illiberal effect on public policy will deeply undermine public trust in elites and our institutions. You couldn't devise a better program to inflame populism if you tried.
You aren’t familiar with the tomes of academic work that has been produced over the past 50 years under the rubrics of critical race theory, feminist theory, or queer theory?
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
You aren’t familiar with the tomes of academic work that has been produced over the past 50 years under the rubrics of critical race theory, feminist theory, or queer theory?
He's talking about the current zeitgeist, the people at the forefront in the world today. To be blunt, the work in these areas has become an insular self-reinforcing ideological circle jerk. There's really not a lot of critical analysis going on in those disciplines at this point; in fact a significant proportion of people who participate in them are skeptical of the practice of critical analysis ab initio. The scientific method holds no sway, narratives are what are important.
The results are apparent. Even though I think the episodes of identitarian college campus insanity that Tucker Carlson and company are so fond of ranting about don't really reflect what it's like to be a student at these schools day to day, there are far too many such incidents. And if you look at the students, faculty and adminsitrators who are typically responsible for these incidents, they don't come from the biology or engineering faculties.
And while there might have been some important thinkers in these areas at some point, there don't seem to be any now. Who are the identitarians selling out auditoriums around the developed world, drawing crowds of people to hear them come and talk about their views on these topics? They do not seem to exist. To the extent they have any following - people like Reza Aslan or Ezra Klein, for example - they don't actually defend their views or engage in substantive criticism. They just smear people who disagree with them.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
You aren’t familiar with the tomes of academic work that has been produced over the past 50 years under the rubrics of critical race theory, feminist theory, or queer theory?
He's probably familiar with the ones his favourite critics will cherry-pick segments from.
He's talking about the current zeitgeist, the people at the forefront in the world today. To be blunt, the work in these areas has become an insular self-reinforcing ideological circle jerk. There's really not a lot of critical analysis going on in those disciplines at this point; in fact a significant proportion of people who participate in them are skeptical of the practice of critical analysis ab initio. The scientific method holds no sway, narratives are what are important.
The results are apparent. Even though I think the episodes of identitarian college campus insanity that Tucker Carlson and company are so fond of ranting about don't really reflect what it's like to be a student at these schools day to day, there are far too many such incidents. And if you look at the students, faculty and adminsitrators who are typically responsible for these incidents, they don't come from the biology or engineering faculties.
And while there might have been some important thinkers in these areas at some point, there don't seem to be any now. Who are the identitarians selling out auditoriums around the developed world, drawing crowds of people to hear them come and talk about their views on these topics? They do not seem to exist. To the extent they have any following - people like Reza Aslan or Ezra Klein, for example - they don't actually defend their views or engage in substantive criticism. They just smear people who disagree with them.
The crazy part is that Tucker Carlson is the only one talking about it. Bret & Eric Weinstein have stated in numerous interviews how much they loathe Tucker Carlson but he was the only mainstream media personality to have them on.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
You aren’t familiar with the tomes of academic work that has been produced over the past 50 years under the rubrics of critical race theory, feminist theory, or queer theory?
Can you point me to any that I can get from Chapters? If Richard Dawkins can present the arguments supporting evolutionary biology in clear and plain language accessible to the average person, and Neil deGrasse Tyson can do the same for astrophysics, then surely critical race theory can be just as accessible.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Most things are far too complex to do any justice to in a debate which is limited by short attention spans, easily subverted with rhetoric, and too dependant on the skill of the debater rather than the actual subject matter.
Heck discussion forums are superior to a verbal debate.
What a cop-out. Intellectuals have publicly debated every matter under the sun, from evolution to the big bang theory.
And the issues we're talking about aren't obscure matters like the behaviour of quarks. Institutionalising racial and gender identities in education, politics, and law is a fundamental change to those institutions. The absence of public debate on this fundamental change is fuelling powerful resentment. If the people championing these changes want to win public support, they need to step onto some kind of public stage and engage with their critics. If they don't, the backlash will be really ugly. The image I keep coming back to is the rattle-brained models in Zoolander having a gasoline fight.
Oh, and it seems most scientists disagree about the value of debate.
For some people it is. Others are drawn to his pseudo-Jungian views about what makes "the good life". I'd go so far as to say the people who are most into him are into him as a cultish life coach sort of figure, not as a public intellectual talking about politics.
I think it is simpler than that and slightly less sinister than your implication. Harris had a good summary when he said that Peterson has really highlighted the need for meaning within the atheist community and that is what people seem to be latching on to with him.
I think he is right, people are giving up religion without fully understanding all the other aspects of it that go along with it. Things like culture, community, ritual and structure. While I fully endorse a society that moves further away for religion, I think there are some unintended voids that need to be addressed or filled - things that atheism will never fully be able to fulfill.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CaramonLS For This Useful Post:
