Academia has had their chance. No one believes "studies" about personal life choices any more if the results conflict with each other every 5 years.
It's just publication pressure (or worse, as other commenters have hinted at).
It's just publication pressure (or worse, as other commenters have hinted at).
You can't say that. (Ok, of course everyone has the right to her opinions.) The point of the scientific method is that it is, in many ways, self-correcting. It's getting addressed, albeit slowly. It will be counterproductive for all of us if we simply dismiss all results we're not comfortable with that it's only publication pressure.
I mean -- you can say that personally, and it probably makes sense, but as a society we need to get social sciences and medicine into a better shape instead of just 'letting it go'.
Oh, so what should we go to now in order to try to expand our knowledge about this? What are you suggesting?
It's draped in the language of knowing, but it's purely emotional material; stuff that makes you feel good, and makes you feel smart for feeling right.
(I also think the desire to drape our tribal impulses in scientific form comes from society prizing smarts for so very, very long, but that's another story.)
He has his opinions, positions and motives just like anyone else, but is open about them. If anything he is a rock star lecturer that exemplifies how informative, accurate, sincere, progressive, intimate, and inspiring science can be. He helps people for a living as a psychologist and a lecturer. If he offends you then you either have issues or don't understand him or both, but he would gladly engage with you either way.
Most that disagree with him disagree with the science, which puts them in the same boat as climate change deniers, of which there are plenty voicing their alternate facts online. But their voice doesn't validate their claims. Science is not a democracy.
Hmmm no we can also think he uses mostly weak papers with dodgy methodologies and over-generalizes the conclusions. Not all scientists within a field agree with any given scientist of that field, that would be ludicrous.
And I never said all scientists agree. Typical straw man. But what I will say is there are plenty of climate change deniers that claim to be scientists.
Nothing is indefensible. Challenge him all you want.
His views are his views. Most of his lectures are about other people's work. When he draws conclusions his logic is sound and his premises are transparent. Talk, think, debate.
Why hate? He continues to help so many people.
If dissing someone is allowed then why isn't praising them? And praising them well?
Because I exaggerated?
But did I?
He continues to help millions of people. Can't say that about many people.
Regarding his work/words: He's right about the biological differences between men and women. He's right about social hierarchies and power structures being inevitable. He's right about the government's overreach on speech being dangerous. He's right about proper discourse on any matter being uncomfortable. He's right about the value of honesty and integrity. He's right about ways to piece your life and yourself back together.
And by right I don't mean binary true or false, because that isn't how science works. By right, I mean the most accurate knowledge we currently have on the topic that could be usefully applied to a problem at hand compared to other less accurate knowledge that is already being applied to problems at hand. Seeing this is why he stood up, and many stood up with him.
You can't be a quack and help so many people or be right about so many things. And at the end of the day he's just a lecturer that's really really good at his job -- at engaging his students and sharing the wealth of knowledge that already exists. And yes, using that knowledge to point out why you are wrong does make him offensive to a lot of people. You don't have to be one of them. And yes, he has turned activist. You don't have to turn into one, by why not? But if you have, then why against?
He isn't anti-scientific. He just isn't. That's a blatantly false claim.
Is there a list of people building on the work of Jordan Peterson? I'd like to see it.
See it. You could have just Google it.
He's listed as first author on three of the first 20 entries, and one of those is a pop-sci book, not an academic paper. Of the other two, one is from 17 years ago and the other is from 29 years ago.
This is not the publication record of an influential social scientist.
Knocking him for collaborating is ignorant and disingenuous. Scientists collaborate. His record shows he is a real scientist. It doesn't have to show he is the best or that he deserves a Nobel Prize. At this point, he's probably a better candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize if anything, but this only goes to show what he's been working on lately, which is more activism than scientific research. More Neil deGrasse Tyson than Einstein, but that doesn't make Neil a fake scientist.
JDP's last book he did write for a broader audience. Great move. Even I read it. And he brought with him the scientists and the research that otherwise would not have reached his audience.
His book is maybe 75% work of other scientists, 20% story telling, and 5% what he draws from it. Basically his 12 rules. He demonstrates how to draw meaning and meaningful conclusions rationally, with well grounded premises. If you have low tolerance for the more abstract genre of ancient story analysis, then skip it. Or maybe there is some truth to it? Decide for yourself.
Did you read his book? Fine if you didn't but I wouldn't claim to understand him if I hadn't. Maybe you have issues with him, which is fine, but again, that is a separate matter than the substance of his lectures. Which are all highly specific by the way. So to say they're all based on weak papers or that he's selling snake oil is an immediate tell that, again, you either don't understand him or have other issues/motives.
(Thanks HN for not letting me reply, claiming I'm posting too fast, when clearly I'm not. Not sure how you're suppose to have a conversation.)
Important work, I'm sure, but not what I'd call groundbreaking; I think the effects of drinking on cognition have been somewhat well-known, at least anecdotally, for at least a few thousand years, give or take.