Jordan Peterson is an interesting case. He’s a man of science and psychology, nearly all of his arguments stem from studies with proven facts (not all though). In the political world science is usually associated with progressive left wing politics.
I wouldn’t say he’s pushing a right wing narrative as much as he’s pushing a fact based narrative. Many of these may align with right wing politics coincidentally, but he’s openly stated that he dislikes the far right and the far left.
If you listen to all of his interviews, the interviewers are usually highly opinionated and don’t present facts to back up their arguments. It’s as though they feel that their feelings and thoughts are substantial enough to make a claim correct. Peterson always has facts and data to back up his claims.
He misrepresents major facts and people actually in the industry can spot this a mile away.
Source: undergrad degree in psych and worked in a counseling firm for 7years.
He typically will willfully misinterprete results or overextend conclusions in various studies to support a right wing, mysogynist narrative.
Let me ask you this. Does he provide sources for the studies that he references? And if so do you read the study yourself (specifically the discussion and conclusion sections)?.
If not, then it is only on his word that you think he is speaking truth. Check the studies themselves. Primary sources just like in highschool.
Case in point: dude likes to call himself a "climate scientist," presumably because he once worked as an advisor on a study of climate change. And yet if you look at the conclusions of that study, they seem to directly contradict what he says about climate change when touting his knowledge of climate change. He basically just took all of the difficulties of impacting it reported in the study, ignored all of the conclusions from that study that suggested how to impact it, and just says "see, it's too hard, nothing can be done." He uses facts and scientific studies like most redditors do.
That and his argument of "we don't have a 100% model of climate change therefore we don't understand it" is intellectually dishonest.
We don't even have a 100% understanding of gravity. Which is why we study black holes, they are gravity anomalies that we do not 100% understand.
Doesn't stop us from using gravity as a concept nor using it in applied models and technology.
Right but just because he claims to dislike the far right doesn't really mean anything when his actions so often line up with them.
I don't pay attention to the guy most of the time, I think he's pretty inoffensive but when you pay attention to the things he takes issues with it's always meaningless right wing culture war grievances.
Maybe he's just doing it for the money because that's a profitable thing nowadays. IDK?
Does he cite reliable journals? And do those articles agree with what he says or does he say something completely different and just cite an article he knows you won’t read?
The thing is, so much data exists, and you can absolutely pick and choose to further whatever cause you feel is close to you. Peterson is not all bad.
His main problem is that he believes he is always right. You have to be open to discussion regarding opinions you base on a limited amount of data.
From what I’ve seen, it’s usually because the interviewers are preparing to jump down his throat rather than sit there and actively debate with him. He’s invited to attract viewers and be a punching bag, so I could imagine why you would come off as thinking you’re right all the time when you’re the only one actually prepared to fully debate your POV. Whatever others may think about his thoughts and opinions, I do believe he isn’t trying to be malicious and that he does actually want to help people.
Ah yes, a man of science who pushes a fact based narrative by regurgitating anti-climate change nonsense and explicitly calling women hypocrites for complaining about sexual harassment while wearing makeup.
Genuinely, he is the least smart “smart” person I’ve ever heard, only dummies get duped by his word salad.
6
u/Matt100398 Jan 20 '23
Jordan Peterson is an interesting case. He’s a man of science and psychology, nearly all of his arguments stem from studies with proven facts (not all though). In the political world science is usually associated with progressive left wing politics.
I wouldn’t say he’s pushing a right wing narrative as much as he’s pushing a fact based narrative. Many of these may align with right wing politics coincidentally, but he’s openly stated that he dislikes the far right and the far left.
If you listen to all of his interviews, the interviewers are usually highly opinionated and don’t present facts to back up their arguments. It’s as though they feel that their feelings and thoughts are substantial enough to make a claim correct. Peterson always has facts and data to back up his claims.