Holy Sh** Jordan Peterson Of All People?!?!?!

[karatekid]

No that is the thing. He does not show the things how they are backed by science. 97% of all peer-reviewed climate change papers agree on the link between human activity and climate change. This is almost as conclusive as the link between smoking and lung cancer... I am talking from the consensus of the experts, not from a few ideologues like you said. Ironically, this is exactly what JP tends to do. He doubts the scientific consensus on climate change .Peterson has said he is "very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change", He has also said, "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved". In a 2018 Cambridge Union address, Peterson said that climate change will not unite anyone, that focusing on climate change is "low-resolution thinking", and there are other more important issues in the world

He does not stop at climate change though. Same-sex parenting is another topic he likes to talk about. He mentioned many times that children need a mother and a father. Not a mother and a mother or a father and a father. The Medical Journal of Australia summarized four different systematic reviews and meta-analyses of dozens of studies from different organizations in Australia and the USA from 2010 to 2017. Conclusions:

• “an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on over three decades of peer-reviewed research, that having a gay or lesbian parent does not harm children”
• “children raised by same-sex couples fare as well as other children across a number of wellbeing measures, including academic performance, cognitive development, social development, and psychological health”
• “being raised by same-sex parents does not harm children, with children in such families doing as well emotionally, socially and educationally as their peers”
• “gender or sexuality of parents did not adversely affect child health or wellbeing

JP is a conservative who uses his intellectual status as a blanket of authority to push conservative beliefs. Nothing against conservatives btw, I find myself somewhere in the middle, but I just hate pseudoscience.



What a horrible fallacy... You discredit science because there is a 16 year old girl that preaches about it and gets attention. If that same girl would have been preaching for cancer awareness, should that be a reason to take cancer less serious?



I agree with this. But you will see more populism on the side of people who deny climate change than the people who believe the scientific consensus. And it is people like Peterson who thrive on populism.

Ok I have nothing to add about the peterson thing, cant argue about thing im not familiar with. I just had good impression from him, but if what you say is true than I will take it.

About the kid thing, read again, I didnt discredit sceince, I just have some general opinion on people that so much driven by agendas and idiologies. You should not based your opinion on ideas, but on logic and common sense. Regard the polution and global warming - does humanity involved? Sure, Is it bad? Sure, should it be addressed? Probably. But even science in this subject can differ alot, scientist from both end of the spectrum estimate the cause, the progress, and the possible solutions to different extent. Logical person will check all data from various researchers and try to figure the most reasonate solution. Idioligist most likely just clinge to the worst extreme and make alot of noise. The problem is that often governments and authorities today have to please them to avoid bad publicity, and I suspect the steps they take are uneffective and do more harm than good.

 

[INT]

Well systemic racism is definitely a thing, it's called affirmative action. He said that red makeup mimics the arrousal of women during ovulation which is not too absurd.

I agree, but he also gave the red fruit example, which is the one I mentioned... Not this one.

You could have picked better examples since he spouts legitimately retarded nonsense from time to time, for example he claimed that two intertwined snakes in Hindu religion represent a DNA helix, because the believers might have been on conscious expanding drugs which allowed them to perceive these things.

Of course there are many more examples... But the woman-make up examples are examples of him injecting ideology into convenient pseudoscience, better than the one you brought up. The whole field of evolutionary psychology is for 90% pseudoscience and I say that as a psychologist.

 

[INT]

Ok I have nothing to add about the peterson thing, cant argue about thing im not familiar with. I just had good impression from him, but if what you say is true than I will take it.

About the kid thing, read again, I didnt discredit sceince, I just have some general opinion on people that so much driven by agendas and idiologies. You should not based your opinion on ideas, but on logic and common sense. Regard the polution and global warming - does humanity involved? Sure, Is it bad? Sure, should it be addressed? Probably. But even science in this subject can differ alot, scientist from both end of the spectrum estimate the cause, the progress, and the possible solutions to different extent. Logical person will check all data from various researchers and try to figure the most reasonate solution. Idioligist most likely just clinge to the worst extreme and make alot of noise. The problem is that often governments and authorities today have to please them to avoid bad publicity, and I suspect the steps they take are uneffective and do more harm than good.

I completely agree with you that a lot of people are driven by agendas and ideologies and that you should not base your opinion on ideas. I prefer to base my opinions on a combination of common sense, data and my understanding of what good and bad sience is. I am free of ideology, I don't care about left, right, conservative, progressive... I care about science and common sense and if you do that you will see that sometimes one side is right and other times the other. JP is obviously biased to one side, unfortunately, and because he is a smart (sounding) guy, this unfortunately makes a lot of stupid people on his side think they are right.

 

[INT]

Lol at this crap. Peterson is far from perfect but stop posting BS that has been debunked already.
97% of all peer-reviewed climate change papers agree on the link between human activity and climate change.

I suggest everyone to watch this:

You talk about pseudoscience but blindly agree with everything mainstream media spoon feds you. As a pyschologist you should know to be more critical. In the 70's scientists were talking about global cooling and a new ice age...

And about the gay parenting thing, you talking about this?

And the gay parent studies, seem to be cherry picked too: studies from different organizations in Australia and the USA from 2010 to 2017

I barely read any mainstream media. I do read research however. Question: can you argue with anyone without making false assumptions about them?

 

[INT]

Sigh Pigeon, to be honest. I have become a bit tired of arguing with people who cannot distinguish good evidence from bad evidence and dogmatically stick to their beliefs. Especially if they feel attacked whenever you/science disagree(s) with them. Loss of a relative has kind given me a new perspective on how I am going to spend my time this year.

If you have a sincere interest in arguing about scientific matters in the future, I truly advise you to have a look at this: https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/01/12/the-hierarchy-of-evidence-is-the-studys-design-robust/

 

[INT]

Well my friend I will check your "good evidence", I'm open minded and read and follow both sides like a lot of science channels that do claim humans are the biggest factor in global warming but so far the other side has been more convincing since I understand how much manipulation happens with climate change numbers.

And my sincere condolences, I wish you a great new year.

Thanks man, best to you too. Hope you will achieve your hair and pfs goals as well. If you ever want to reach out to me about that that last one, do not hesitate. I am doing very well in that regard lately.

 

[Tom4362]

He is back!!

 

[JohnsonDDG]

Who thinks his benzo addiction will undermine his career? People may discredit him for being an addict.

Personally, despite not liking his neo-conservative message, I dont think it should be used against him. He was sick, his wife has/had cancer, and he took what the doctor told him to take. I think we should show compassion to him, and let it remind us that we have to show understanding to many addicts.

Along with that, we ought to focus on his ideas and critiquing that in a fair manner, and not fall into weak attacks on a person character.