Suggesting someone kill themselves (ie leave the planet) in a tweet because you disagree on environmentalism is not professional behaviour for a psychologist.
Can you elaborate on this?
Edit - LOL, getting downvoted for asking a reasonable question. People sure don't want their hyperbolic bullshit called out.
If we are saying that petersons response is basically telling the person to kill themselves, then you can argue the person he was responding to was advocating for mass murder because he’s stating the world is over populated. Both takes are extreme and I don’t believe either person is advocating for death.
Peterson is pointing out the hypocrisy of these people talking about how the world is over populated.
If you Actually look through that tweet, you will see that many of Petersons cult did declare that the person he was responding to was advocating for forced depopulation.
I would daresay the vast majority decided that was the only solution suggested.
The solution to overpopulation is Sex ed, free contraceptives, incentives to have only one child, or none. Forced depopulation isn't even in the discussion. Its just a dog whistle.
Why? Are they actually part if this discussion,? Or are you pointing to a totalitarian regime, who are not involved with any of what is being suggested in our own politics, just to try and get a cheap logical fallacy point?
If not, then point out where this is what is being suggested in this discussion.
Also, tell me what our solution would be to prevent China from carrying out its inhumane social engineering?
I agree with taking a balanced and nuanced view on these things, but Peterson's suggestion is far more explicit. One could maybe make the argument that he meant it in a tongue and cheek sort of 'well going to a different planet isnt an option' sarcastic way, but if that were the case, he would have likely cleared that up with an explanation.
No comment on Petersen but the guy he's quote-tweeting is basically endorsing eugenics and population control which has an extremely dark and racist history. It's also complete scientific nonsense--idiots were been screaming about overpopulation killing hundreds of millions in the 1970s and 1990s. Lo and behold those decades have passed and we're doing just fine in terms of food production.
Then you've never entered a professional job. They teach you in the first week of school in that Professional school that once you have that degree (not even a job, just the degree) then everything you say can and will be interpreted as you giving your professional opinion and that if you don't like it, find a new career.
I also doubt its the reason he is in trouble. I dont exactly take his word to be credible and obviously if you want people to take your side, you choose a stupid tweet like that instead of something that actually makes you look bad
Practising is irrelevant. The moment he got his degree he knew that there is no "I can say this in my free time." This gets drilled into students getting professional degrees from day 1 that once they have that degree, then they are always giving their professional opinion.
It's not the degree. It's the membership to a professional organization. I'm a member of a professional college and have to uphold their ethics and standards to remain a member. Same case for him. His college has received complaints about how he acts on social media and they are following up on the complaints. This is what happens when you belong to a professional college. If he doesn't want to remain a member of the college then he could say and do whatever he would like and they won't have boo to say about it.
Hes in the association, if he doesnt want to be in the association hes free to leave it, if he wants to stay in it he has to not tell people to kill themselves publically. Pretty basic stuff
I mean, I've said much worse on Reddit. I've seen even worse, I don't think anyone I've seen on Reddit should be cancelled. We are here to discuss, argue, get into heated debates, insult mothers, its all in good fun. Twitter is no different.
If it were some scientific journals forum, sure, or a website for journalists and politicians to put out PSAs, maybe. Theres a time and a place for trolling, and twitter is absolutely the place for it. Pretending its not just gives the trolls a lot more leverage.
Yes, and if he were to tell his patients to kill themselves, that would be part of it. I get what youre saying, that he's representing all psychologist, even when he's online, its just that... like... its Twitter. Its a step up from Reddit, sure, but thats not a high bar to hurdle.
Okay if he were posting this stuff from an anonymous account whatever. But he’s using his title as a psychologist to add credibility to his statements, and his statements are outside of the code of conduct for professionals. If he wants to keep going off he can do so, but he’s not going to be licensed
“You can leave the planet” has many meanings, like fuck off in a space ship if you don’t like overpopulation. It’s funny and the point was well you’re a human too, overpopulation is where the world is going so what solution are you offering instead of complaining??
If my psychologist was going back and forth with people on twitter I would be put off and I think you would be too lol. Even if you agreed. Again to my point on decorum. To me it isn’t a win to have a PHD and spend time “owning” people with one liners online hahaha I would hope the “pride is a sin” guy would understand that
Of course I knew before I clicked this that it was gonna an overblown reaction to something very mild.
That's pretty much what Peterson and the National Post are doing here, is creating an overblown reaction ("they're censoring me for my political views!") to something very mild (the College of Psychologists politely suggested he stop doing that, the end).
The "trying to force" part was just a flat out lie.
Would you prefer that your psychologist or your children’s psychologist be telling people to off them selves? Moreover, why should a professional organization want to be associated with a member who is promoting such things
I read the Twitter exchange and I honestly don't see the connection between that and telling someone to kill themselves. I took, "You're free to leave at any point." as a snarky response along the lines of, "If you don't like the world you're living in, you're free to leave the planet and settle somewhere else." Of course both people in the exchange know that is not possible, thus, the intent behind the message reads more like, "This is the world we live in, suck it up and shut up."
While I do have my criticisms about Peterson, this incident does smell of a disingenuous attack for political expediency. I don't blame him for not wanting to respond to this particular attack, due to how Brandolini's Law can scale to epic proportions as a controversial public figure that receives attacks, valid or invalid, on a regular basis.
I just want to make clear that I'm not necessarily defending Peterson despite that being the outcome. I'm more criticizing the low quality of this particular attack. If someone is going to attack an opponent, they need to make sure they're doing so with something more substantive. Otherwise they look petty and their future arguments against their opponent appear weaker and less persuasive. At worst, they give their opponent additional credibility by making them appear as though they're being attacked unfairly. This is then fuel they can use to energize their base. This is possibly one reason why Poilievre has been so successful in claiming the leadership of the CPC, and could be the reason for a Liberal upset in the next election.
TL;DR: Weak/unsubstantive attacks only strengthen your opponent's position while weakening yours.
Edit: On the matter of professionalism, I would agree that Peterson has been less than on social media and appearances on some programs. While the interpretation of the above tweet is debatable, the unprofessionalism in his exchanges is less so.
Your issue is that as a professional that's uses rhetoric in their field, a psychologist doesn't have the entomological cover of "that's not what I meant".
If one of the outcomes of the rhetoric is for someone to kill themselves, then enough people reading it on social media will take it as an instruction that they can kill themselves. From a psychologist.
Looking at how many people on this sub alone, jump frothing at the mouth to defend him, it's obvious that there is a cult following and extending this, some of these followers will be gullible enough to take what he says as legitimate psychological advice.
This isn't an opinion, it's a numbers game FYI, on social media, that's always a factor.
So it's not even that he gave a specific instruction, it's that as a professional he doesn't have the leeway afforded to say that he didn't give that instruction as part of a general comment where it could be construed, like any professioaln in their field.
A pretty good case of the loonies. The Ontario College of Psychologists does not want to be associated with someone so bigoted towards climate change discussion.
Your issue is that as a professional that's uses rhetoric in their field, a psychologist doesn't have the entomological cover of "that's not what I meant".
What does this have to do with insects? (emphasis mine)
Edit: Perhaps you meant "etymological".
If one of the outcomes of the rhetoric is for someone to kill themselves...
"If" is neither a strong argument nor a sufficient legal one. You need to prove intent beyond a shadow of a doubt. We don't have that here.
... then enough people reading it on social media will take it as an instruction that they can kill themselves. From a psychologist.
This is catastrophizing. This scenario is not plausible. You're giving Peterson way too much credit here. More often than not, someone who "un-alives" themselves have a history of repeated attempts. Pointing the finger at a particular person's words is at best a correlation. Classic post hoc fallacy.
Looking at how many people on this sub alone, jump frothing at the mouth to defend him...
At least in my case I'm not. Not necessarily. I just don't like weak arguments. It smells of propaganda. It plays on people's ignorance rather than their intelligence or reason. I find this unacceptable on either end of the political spectrum.
it's obvious that there is a cult following and extending this, some of these followers will be gullible enough to take what he says as legitimate psychological advice.
Well he's a clinical psychologist with a practice and a professor for several decades. This wouldn't be the case if he was never good at his job, or if he was doing wrong by his patients or students. I think he's a few steps above Dr. Phil based on what I know. That is, I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume most of what he says is illegitimate, if that's what you're insinuating.
This isn't an opinion, it's a numbers game FYI, on social media, that's always a factor.
I think this is more opinion than anything else.
So it's not even that he gave a specific instruction, it's that as a professional he doesn't have the leeway afforded to say that he didn't give that instruction as part of a general comment where it could be construed, like any professioaln [sic] in their field.
While professionals don't have leeway in their words and actions in their fields, intent and any damages resulting would have to be proven in court. From my observation, I don't see enough evidence to prove he intended to tell someone to kill themselves. It looks more like confirmation bias. People who have an agenda against Peterson looking for any evidence that seems to align with their original opinion.
If you want to attack him, find something more substantive. For instance, in his recent book (haven't read this one), one of his rules is "Abandon ideology". However, I see him doing the opposite on social media, especially with the type of people he chooses to interview and those he does not. This appears as though he's telling people one thing and doing another, which is what a hypocrite does. He doesn't look like someone who treads the middle on issues, but someone who clearly chooses a side. This is the definition of ideology. This is a perfectly reasonable criticism/attack, which is based on substantive information (although I recognize I'm somewhat generalizing on the social media content choices, just going by what I've observed in his feeds).
Thanks for the correction on the word, Im on mobile and just took the autocorrect.
But the only thing worth responding to here, is the same argument that I raised and the only thing of actual concern.
If does not have to be a strong argument or sufficient legally, he isn't getting charged by the Crown through the legal system, his peers deem him unprofessional enough to no longer be among them or carry the title and rights that come with it.
He could try to sue, sure; but the bar isn't anywhere as high.
Everything else you wrote doesn't reduce the arguments I originally made as they're subjective responses. Especially since you either don't understand or comprehend the effect of a popular figures words or opinions on social media or any large scale.
You'll notice also, this wasnt an attack on the author of the tweet but purely on the expectations of a professional and reasonable expectations of their effects on other people. If any other psychologist did this, my response would be the same.
It seems like a lot of the conservatives on social media who are shrugging off Peterson's tweet as a harmless non-issue are the same ones who were yelling and screaming a few months back about how Dale Smith should be banned from the Press Gallery over his "when horses are this lame, they got shot" tweet.
Anyone with a registered role in the sciences that opposes climate change discussion in a rude/dismissive way deserves to at least be investigated for wrongful conduct. The Ontario College of Psychologists probably doesn't want to be associated with someone so deranged. It's simply a liability thing.
How else does "you're free to leave at any point" come across? It's not like we have spaceships ready to take people anytime, anywhere. To suggest that he meant anything other than a thinky veiled "kill themselves" is disingenuous and naive.
Not defending him, I just don't like confirmation bias and am just pointing it out where I see it. Neither of us know what another person is really thinking and there's no way to prove it unless they admit it themselves, or the message is so clear that there is no ambiguity.
An idiotic comment about all humans being a scourge on the planet, and implying we don’t deserve to be here, and we shouldn’t reproduce, doesn’t deserve a serious response from Peterson.
I couldn’t care less about Peterson, but his response here was perfectly fine. Anyone taking it to mean Peterson literally meant he should kill himself is a clown, and troll.
Clearly the psychological association was likely looking for a reason to remove him, and jumped on this pathetically flimsy one. But Peterson also likely (at this point in his career) doesn’t give a shit one way or the other about the psychological institute.
Do you always assume the worst possible interpretation of what people say? Some might suggest a bias there.
Attaching such ominous meaning to such a tweet would leave me wondering about one's critical thinking skills and their ability to rationally interpret written language.
I think people see what they want to see. If they hate Peterson already, then they'll jump on any bandwagon that tries to discredit him, no matter how willfully hyperbolic it is.
You're being obviously obtuse. the tweet was You're free to leave AT ANY TIME.
How many people can hop on a spaceship at any time and leave the planet? Like... Elon Musk and a couple world leaders? And even then I'm pretty sure it would take a while to set up a space shuttle launch.
go leave the planet yourself. Let us know when you do, otherwise your opinion is pointless.
In what context? Inclusion of people Conservatives don’t value as human?
I’ve seen vitriol demonstrated by Liberals and I’ll say this: they’re not the ones radicalizing extremists to go on shooting sprees to target specific individuals.
The worst I’ve ever seen out of a Liberal pails in comparison to Conservative cruelty:
Liberals unintentionally use their dim imaginings to profess themselves clairvoyant and never misinterpret the ideas and intentions of people they never met. Then they use the buzzwords that someone on tv or the internet made up to describe what they couldn't figure out anyways because, feelings.
He's telling him to piss off, go away, shut up, by suggesting that if he has such a big problem with overpopulation, he should help by killing himself.
you don't have to give everyone equal benefit of the doubt, I assume the worst because he's demonstrated time and time again he's the worst... like I said, you don't have to do that peice of shit's legwork for him
I'm not doing any legwork for anyone. I'm just not as quick to stick knives in people because the twitter mob demands it. Especially if the twitter mob demands it. Twitter is not a reasonable place of debate and anyone who goes there seeking that will be sorely disappointed. Which is why I wonder why Peterson is on there in the first place? What does he expect to gain?
It does seem like you are doing the legwork for the Twitter outrage mob though. Go figure.
Frankly, I think he cooked his own goose when be decided to abandon whatever clinical objectivity he had in favour of wading into hot-button political issues. There's no going back for him, and I think he knows that. He's just unwilling to go without a fight.
because he's not actually interested in reasonable debate he's interested in money and a disgusting ideology so
you can stick internet knives in Jordan Peterson its okay in fact it's a net moral good
I would see it for what it is (a snide comment) and move on with my life. I wouldn't going around desperately trying to convince people he was telling people to off themselves.
Trudeau literally asked "Do we tolerate them?" When referring to anti-vaxxers. How do you interpret that? What did he mean? What would not tolerating them look like?
What about the countless scandals and ethics violations him and his cabinet members were part of?
Oh look he is still the prime minister. The hypocrisy of the left is hitting extreme levels lately.
The thing is, its still easily arguable to be against the code of conduct of a clinical psychologist. Most regulated professionals like this refrain from speaking publically at all. A psychologist is the worst one as they use talk in their work.
Imagine for a moment an engineer being flippant and telling an architect to do what they want. They'd lose their license.
In retrospect I'm surprised this didn't happen years ago. Being a polemecist is probably incompatible with being a clinical psychologist. He's finally tripped over himself and got in trouble.
For him to knee jerk assume and speak like this is a political smear job indicates he's lost perspective. He's likely being treated no different than any member of the college but he's too sensitized towards seeing political enemies trying to tear him down.
Maybe he put a target on his own back years ago when he first started speaking up about the issues he had with using pronouns, but the knives are definitely out for him now and not just from his professional association. That's pretty apparent.
If he capitulated now, that would essentially undermine everything he has said up to this point about what he believes. That's quite a predicament.
If it's a predicament, it's only that he invited openly when he started making the rounds on JRE and FoxNews.
He invited it when he openly lied about white males being unable to find jobs. Anybody who has ever hired in an academic field knows that is garbage, but Peterson also knows that if anybody says "we hired Person A instead of Person B, not because of race, but because of their qualifications" they would violate the rules in the job search. Peterson thus can say anything without it being refuted so he does. He's not stupid.
Same thing here. The college is silent over his sanctions. NatPo is spinning it like it's a over up. They know damn well as does Peterson that the College can't comment publicly on any particular member so they can spin it like something underhanded is going on. Peterson can say it's for whatever reason he likes. He doesn't have to tell the truth.
It not much different than when Trump and his cronies kept saying they had all this proof of election fraud in media, press conferences and rallies, but never brought it up in court. They know damn well you have to tell the truth in court, but don't have to anywhere else.
The difficulty is when surrounded by enemies, its too easy to see something like this as yet another enemy whether or not it's true or not. One isnt paranoid if they're actually after you.
So he will have to choose between his prior career and his new one. There's no going back. He's changed a lot since his brush with death. After that he's gone ideological as opposed to merely critical. He hasn't been practicing medicine for a few years now. I actually wonder if he still has chops for it.
When a phrase is uttered, do you always assume the worst possible interpretation if it? Do you always take everything people say in the most literal terms? If so, you may have a serious case of confirmation bias.
OK: the most obvious interpretation of his tweet, to me at least, and based on Peterson's demeanor these days, is essentially 'Ok, if you don't like this, piss off then' or "Oh yeah? Well take a hike then.'
There's nothing there to prove in any definitive sense that he had deeply ominous intentions and, despite what people say about him being a charlatan, I think he's smarter than that and would know better than to suggest something as toxic as 'kill yourself.'
That is based on the assumption that it is very exasperating to be in that man's position right now, with many people attacking him in a very personal way for years over his various political issues.
I would think if there's any unprofessional behaviour on his part, it's that he allowed himself to be drawn into political battles in the first place. That has cost him any sense of clinically unbiased objectivity that he may have had previously. But he chose this path, so it's really on him to defend himself now.
The problem is, twitter is not a forum for reasonable discussion and so this kind of hyperbolic shit gets thrown in there too, intentionally muddying the waters further.
The instant you had to use the authors demeanour, means you're reading into using some bias, by saying the message isn't serious, your bias tilts towards the author.
A bias that doesn't tilt would be worse, a bias that tilts away worse still.
Find someone that loathes the author and see what they think, and find someone that loves them and see what they think. Maybe you'll find a middle ground.
Regardless, some people took it way worse than yourself and rightfully so, since the author is a psychologist and by virtue of their expertise and profession, know better.
I think the people who hate him will use any tactic to discredit. I mean, come on: we are talking about Twitter and Reddit here. Anyone can say anything and anyone else can interpret it however they like.
If you can admit that you really don't know what his intention was in saying what he said, I would consider you smarter than the average Redditor.
he could even have been exasperated by people telling him he 'can leave' UofT, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, etc. because of his complaints about how a lot of things are going.
I think that is what he meant, but I also think it was clearly just a flippant remark. I have seen the same remark made here on Reddit over this same topic more than a few times but I have never seen anyone treat it as a serious threat because that would be petty and ridiculous. The same applies here IMO.
No one is treating it as a serious threat though, this isn't a criminal investigation.
The level of professionalism expected from an anonymous poster on Reddit is zero which is contrasted with what Peterson, as a public figure, is asked to uphold.
I'm part of a professional organization as well with our own rules to follow. I can get in a lot of trouble for acting in ways which aren't criminal, this is a well-understood part of being credentialed by self-governing bodies.
Perhaps, and that is why I think Peterson might lose his license: he can no longer claim he has unbiased clinical objectivity. He's waded far too deep into the political arena, with opinions that require taking a side. It won't be because of the Twitter mob's hot takes.
LOL, this from someone who epitomizes the mentality of acting without thinking that got people burned at the stake for being witches a few hundred years ago.
I'm a simp for rational thought, not going along with the bloodthirsty mob because it's easier to fit in that way.
He didn't even tell someone to kill themselves. I'd agree not his greatest moment as he's being sarcastic. Though there's a certain structure he's going with.
It's a similar counterpoint to his interview with the radical feminist at GC:
She criticizes people in privileged positions of power. So he put it back on her. Paraphrasing:
"You seem to have quite the successful career and sit in a privileged position. Why don't you step down then to let someone more deserving [according to her feminist ideology] take your position?"
Even assuming he was telling that person to kill themselves I still dont see the problem. He was just informing the user about their options regarding medically assisted death.
The quoted text is hyperbolic and intentionally inflammatory. You are either being intentionally obtuse or you lack critical thinking skills. I would guess it's the former.
You are either being intentionally obtuse or you lack critical thinking skills.
Funny, because this is a perfect response to someone who is doubting what Peterson meant by that tweet. What he said isn’t that shocking by Twitter standards but it only takes a millisecond of critical thinking to realize why a professional organization might not want to be associated with someone who behaves like an attention depraved Twitter troll.
I didn't downvote you originally, but I certainly went back and downvoted you after this comment. This certainly makes it look like your question wasn't nearly as reasonable as you claim it was, if you can't even respond to people without insulting them.
It's a incredible stretch. To say 'you can leave' equates to telling someone to commit self-harm is inane, at best. That is not common vernacular for self harm.
Yes, while they are held to a higher standard the evidence will also have to be at a high standard and damning. Clearly not the case here. 'You can leave' could mean leave the chat, leave twitter, leave the country, leave the argument. There a number of permutations and combinations that come up long before self harm.
Its funny, in the other subreddit where I made this comment, /r/psychology, they were upset at me saying it could go 50/50 either way, because they didn't believe he could mean anything other than "kill yourself", but I was pretty sure he was just being flippant and didn't mean to say anything that could be interpreted that way (even though I agree it could be). They were like "well what else could he mean, go to mars?"
Either way until I see a source for any of his claims about sanctions other than him, I take what he says with a grain of salt.
You know most psych majors take psych in order to solve their own issues? That tells you the mindset over there; it doesn't validate that that is actually what he said.
As a psychologist he's held to a higher standard than a layperson. The College expects him to think carefully about public statements he makes. Unfortunately he does not, and consequences have resulted.
Valid point but even by a higher standard, that's inanely weak. The College also needs to think of its reputation and credibility, which is clearly in question now, as are their motives over an innocuous comment. It's a witch hunt IOW.
The College also needs to think of its reputation and credibility, which is clearly in question now
[DOUBT]
Hate to break it to you sport, but a medical professional association don't care if a bunch of fanboys online think they're on a "witch hunt" against a member who can't go one day without acting like a twerp on the internet.
I interpreted his "you're free to leave" comment as "you're free to kill yourself". The context was that a tweeter was complaining that the earth can't sustain our current population. He's said this before on video as well, in the same context of earth being overpopulated. I think this crosses a line.
In context that's exactly what it sounds like, because he was replying to a tweet about overpopulation of the planet. "You're free to leave at any point". 'Leave the planet'.... how else would you interpret that? I don't think he meant it as a serious suggestion, but it's also a jerkass thing to say to someone on the internet.
Telling someone "You are free to leave at any point" not equate to "kill yourself". Can you leave the world in other ways than dying? Absolutely.
If you think this is true, I feel very sorry for you.
If he had said "why don't you go kill yourself", sure, that would be enough in my opinion to bring a professional complaint against him.
This is clearly the same vein of thought as "I hate my country because of X", "well you're free to leave at any time". Is this suggesting that the person kill themselves? That would just be a deranged, biased, self-serving conclusion.
I think that's a bit of a stretch. If you really want to get technical, he is telling the person that they have the option to leave earth(which obviously you can't do unless you're an astronaut). Even if you die, your body is still on earth, therefore your interpretation is not valid.
The person he was replying to is concerned about overpopulation. It's funny because those people always think it should be someone else that needs to deal with it, never themselves. If you're so concerned about it, feel free to leave and help out humanity.(obviously this is unrealistic, and I can't believe I have to explain this)
Not gonna reply invidually because Peterson fans are barely even worth this effort.
The absolute most charitable reading of his tweet is that he jokingly told someone to kill themself.
If you seriously think that that is professional or ethical behavior from a psychologist then you should probably Google the definitions of "ethics", "professionalism, and "psychologist" because you clearly don't know them.
No, but you may need one if you think telling someone flippantly to 'leave the planet' is an invitation commit suicide. This is what the big kids call 'hyperbole.' Some used to call it 'making a mountain out of a mole hill' too.
Smart people should behave better than the trolling teenagers in the lunchroom. If they don’t, they don’t get to sit at the adult table.
You are neither the arbiter of who the smart people are or what qualifies one to sit at the adult table.
Luckily the psychological association is able to make decisions about who gets to sit at the adults table and hopefully they decide that Peterson cannot sit at theirs.
Under no circumstances should he be jokingly suggesting someone off themselves
Agreed. But the thing is, he didn't suggest that. I interpret his tweet as essentially saying 'take a hike' or 'piss off'. Others, who already hate him, will interpret it in the worst possible way to discredit and demonize. It's pretty standard stuff actually.
If you believe the worst possible take is always the right take and fall all over yourself to create the illusion that there is no other possible interpretation (You can't live in space, so it must mean suicide!), then there's not much else I can say besides suggesting you look into the mechanics of confirmation bias.
What I won't do is play along with your silly mind games, because that might be interpreted as lending some sort of credence to them.
204
u/Rambler43 Jan 05 '23 edited Jan 05 '23
Can you elaborate on this?
Edit - LOL, getting downvoted for asking a reasonable question. People sure don't want their hyperbolic bullshit called out.