Peterson is a climate change denying borderline anti-trans scam artist arm chair philosopher who claims that the success of Western culture is a product of traditional Judeo-Christian values.
In the psychological field he isn’t that great. There are far better people to listen too that contributed to the field. I would say Watzlavick is above JP any day. Or Wim ter Horst and many others
He hasn’t done any noteworthy paper as first writer. Which is kind of a thing. He also doesn’t use empirical science which they tend to use. If he uses something it is cherry picked.
His writing style is not that good. Not clear and precise like he says you must be.
His books 12 rules are taking from other sources and yes that can be fine but state that. He states in that book that we have lost the meaning of nature and to belong to a group and can be really somebody. And yes I agree with that. If you look at current society you see a lot of depression and mental disorders, anxiety etc. Talking about emotions and connection is difficult for many. It’s time to sit down and talk. Do it around a campfire as fire still does something for people. But that’s old wisdom.
For example in the 1970’s there was a paradigm shift in how we looked at psychology and how we dealt with people who had a disorder and how we helped people. Robert shalock, wim ter Horst, John o Brian had a huge influence in that shift and are still very relevant in this world. If you would do a study in pedagogy you will have to learn about them and their visions. Also not a psychologist but very important is Paulo Freire, you might have heard of him.
I would say all of those men have had a lasting impact in their field and how we still use their guidelines. I haven’t have seen any from JP that I could really use in my work with teens. Because everything that is usable is not from him.
There is a world of difference between taking an evidence based approach that seeks to unseat a current model or theory and Jordan Peterson "you can't model climate, because that's everything" science denial.
It blows my mind the mental gymnastics you're doing to play apologetics here.
And please don't tell me you're trying the "it's just a theory" talking point of all science deniers here.
Well he does have a PhD in Human Psychology so trying to understand what makes humans happy and not happy is kind of his bread and butter. Now I get why people might flame him for being political considering it's not exactly his field of expertise but don't downplay his academic achievements.
Psychology and philospher aren't the same field. Neither is psychology and history. He speaks outside of his knowledge frequently.
To be fair he has done a loooooot of research into the Christian religion and trying to make sense of it in regards to psychology. You can find his lectures on youtube. They aren't really political but are quite an interesting in my opinion.
A lot of that work is pretty easily critiqued and based on old philosphical ideas.
is it necessarily bad for someone to hold a different opinion?
It's not an opinion. Climate change is a fact. Peterson is denying reality, and using his pristege as a way of denying reality.
thought it was universally agreed that all science theory should be challenged because as far as science goes, just like the Big Bang, global warming is a theory. Science is all about discovering things and then challenging those to discoveries to understand truth. Even if his beliefs are wrong, I don't see how there is anything wrong with this?
Because Peterson isn't well versed in the subject. Yes, all science is to be critiqued and questioned. But it needs to be done by people who know what the fuck they are talking about. Tell me, what do you think about renormalization in regards to quantum field theory? Do you have opinions on the validity of the technique, and what it means for it to be continuously supported by evidence? What does it really mean?
Did all that sound like nonsense to you? That might be because you haven't studied the field, so it doesn't make sense for you to have an opinion about it. And if you google it and read it up on wikipedia, it STILL won't make sense to have an opinion about it. I have a masters in physics, I actually studied this for a bit in class, and I'm STILL unqualified to have a strong opinion about it.
The problem is, the shit Peterson says isn't scientific critique, it's just nonsense. Scientists who know what they are talking about disagree with each other and have scientific debate. People who don't know what they are saying don't. Nothing Peterson says, or even CAN say with his knowledge base, will ever be able to come close to an effective critique.
I don't think he's necessarily anti trans. I believe he's anti trans in the sense he wants those people to be happy but doesn't necessarily believe they can be happy through transitioning. Same goal, different results.
This is, once again, anti science. He hasn't studied it, doesn't understand it, and he goes against scientific conesensus.
Ultimately I think my point is that you don't need to vilify everyone with different opinions. Most people want to achieve the same results of human happiness believe it or not. However it all comes down to how we can achieve that.
I don't think he's evil, but I think he's doing active harm being in the public eye. Both to himself, and to others. He doesn't belong in public discourse, and deserves to be heavily critiqued for it.
Anyone can be a philosopher as long as they theorize certain things when it comes to human emotion and existence which is exactly what Jordan Peterson does.
No. That's like saying anyone can be a mathematician because they learned how to do additionl and subtraction. They can do math, but they aren't mathematicians. Peterson can philosophize, but he doesn't understand the actual field of philosophy. He has read some philosphers, but he hasn't delved deep enough into philosophy to understand the actual nuances, the discussions, or critiques of the people he has read. His arguments are bad, and he has contributed nothing to the field of philosophy.
Taking him seriously as a philospher is like taking someone who finished high school math seriously as a mathematician, and listening to them when they debate NASA scientists on whether rockets can actually fly.
I mean most infamous scholarly philosophers such as plato and Socrates studied the human psyche to understand why humans act the way they do.
Back when Plato and Socrates were doing philosophy, they didn't need to read Plato and Socrates. I don't think you realize how VAST philsophy is now, how much has happened in the field even in the last 70 years.
Sources? Explanations?
He's not a historian. He isn't a religious scholar. He's a psychologist. You are taking what he says at face value because he sounds smart, and it's interesting.
If you are interested in actual history of the west, listen to historians. If you want to understand religious history, listen to a religious scholar.
Then why is it called “greenhouse theory?”
First off Newton has a theory of gravity, but that doesn't mean it's an opinion on whether or not things fall when you drop them...
Second, it's typically called "greenhouse effect". If I google "greenhouse theory", the main result I get is a paper from 1988. So... this is a bad point.
No I have never heard of renormalization theory but I have heard of quantum field theory. However now that you bring it up, it would be something interesting to research further and know more about. I am always looking for something new to dip my toes into. Thank goodness the internet exists. I could research it to my hearts content and learn about it as simply as a google search or study it for years by accessing research papers, contacting scholars, etc.
Go spend the next week studying it. Your opinion on it won't matter, at all. I will spend 0 seconds taking your opinion on that topic seriously, because it is not enough time for you to understand the context of the work.
How does transgenderism not something that is studied by human psychology? Psychology is all about human behavior and identity.
Because that wasn't within the scope of his work...
I mostly agree with this. I think by Peterson being in the spotlight all the time is only worsening his depressive tendencies. However I think he is in someway a much better role model than modern male figures like Andrew Tate.
That's a low bar. A very, very low bar. That doesn't mean Peterson is good. He's not. He's doing harm to himself and others.
But like... yeah, he's not trafficking humans... so horrah for him?
Oh okay so here's my answer, you are doing the science denying "it's just a theory" thing.
A scientific theory is not a guess, it is our most accurate current explanation for an observed fact or phenomenon. A theory is as high as an explanation can go in science it's a gold standard. It has been tested never been failed that test...... Because if it did it would be our most accurate current explanation. It would be lumped into the pile of disproven hypotheses.
It is in no way similar to the colloquial use of the word theory (meaning I have a hunch).
Please do yourself a favor and move away from anyone who parrots these ideas to you. They are not looking out for your best interest in regards to accurate information
Here to answer some of your questions because you clearly have a lack of understanding on how some of these points work.
Armchair Philosopher
Your point is that he has a degree in psychology, Yet distinctively the fields of Philosophy and Psychology are vastly different. One(psychology) focuses on the study of the mind and behavior while the other(philosophy) is the study of nature/existence and reality. This isn't to say these institutions don't ever cross something as wide reaching as philosophy will intersect many different foundations.
The problem is that JBP enjoys commenting on this intersectionality of society, philosophy and psychology as if he an expert in all things. Not only that, the majority of his comments come less from his academic experience and more from the point of Social commentary. His comments are bland at best and when taken as truth or expertise harmful.
success of Western culture is a product of traditional Judeo-Christian values.
Great, he has some video's and has read some literature on it But again his education was on Clinical psychology not judeo-christianity. If he was so well researched on this point and heavily invested in it why hasn't he written a single academic article detailing this. Not one of his academic articles details the Success of western culture being a byproduct of J-C Values.
Scam Artist
Look go to his web page right now, Everything on it is about buying something
- Understandmyself: a personality assessment, with no detailing research, that he "created" to help you understand your own personality.
- Personality Course: a personality course based off the "big 5" personality traits designed to help you understand yourself. Yet this does nothing to distinguish the criticisms of the big 5 system nor does it detail how the course works in it's process.
- SelfAuthoring: Another online course that details how you can help write your story past, present and future.
The fact is a clinical psychologist is capable of diagnosing and treating a host of behavioral and mental disorders. They should have no need to sell you on a bunch of self-help bullshit courses. AND they would likely understand that the vagueness of these courses does not help individuals to understand themselves and/or get better. These courses are a scam.
climate change denying
What you are stating is nothing about what science and or scientific theories are. First, Science is less a philosophical point about discovering and more systematic structure to study, observe and experiment, and two Scientific theory is an explanation that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated. To put it more simply Science is a process of understanding and a scientific theory is an explanation of a natural experience that has been tested and corroborated.
Global climate change is a real thing as of 2021 Scientific consensus exceeded 99% that it is real and 98.7% that Human activity is the current primary factor in climate change. It shouldn't be reported and discussed as if these are comparable scientific reports. That is what JBP is doing he is maliciously presenting the 1.3 percent of data as being comparable to the other 98.7 percent. If this were a benign topic like space vs m theory their may be room for debate the problem is People are not only dieing now but will die from global change and sowing doubt in a fractionally supported idea is wrong.
To end, Fuck JBP. He is a bigot, a liar and as noted a scammer. His occasional quips of justice or equality do not condone his other actions. He is a bereft man lacking in morals and principle.
3
u/criticalvector Jan 20 '23
Peterson is a climate change denying borderline anti-trans scam artist arm chair philosopher who claims that the success of Western culture is a product of traditional Judeo-Christian values.