'Wrecks' him does he? While 'schooling' Ben, no less. Did anyone get 'owned'?

Did these people all go to the Wayne's World college?I

Thommo wrote:

The_Piper wrote:I think he's a self-important dick wad. Not worth any more of my time. I only have so much of it to go around.

I spent about an hour or so yesterday looking through the links and clips people have provided and a few others and decided that you've hit the nail on the head.

I didn't even hear him say anything interesting.

Yup. I've recently become aware of him, and after checking out 2 or 3 of his Youtube clips, was wondering what all the fuss was about. I was kind of assuming there was , maybe, some good stuff that I was missing, so I'm glad to see a thread here on him.

I like Jordan Peterson ... some of his psychology classes are interesting. While I don't agree with everything he proposes, at least some of it is evidence based.

His fan base, can be little scary. From what I have read he does not agree with the rhetoric coming from his fan base.

Spinozasgalt wrote:He also did an interview with Vice where...well, they got onto the subject of women and sexual harassment in the workplace. And I guess you could say he didn't come across well.

Saw that. Was talking nonsense like:
Can women and men work together?
They've only been working together for 40 years.

Looked like he was trying to use the "best defense is a good offense" strategy, which made him look like he was guilty himself!
So, stay tuned!

Mike_L wrote:

Those videos are sadly mislabeled in that Harris isn't talking about Jordan Peterson, so it's rather misleading. But I agree with what he says, and I think it fits well as a description of JP, and Ben Shapiro is clearly full of shit.

“Men have to toughen up,” Jordan B. Peterson writes in 12 Rules For Life: An Antidote to Chaos, “Men demand it, and women want it.” So, the first rule is, “Stand up straight with your shoulders back” and don’t forget to “clean your room.” By the way, “consciousness is symbolically masculine and has been since the beginning of time.” Oh, and “the soul of the individual eternally hungers for the heroism of genuine Being.” Many such pronouncements—didactic as well as metaphysical, ranging from the absurdity of political correctness to the “burden of Being”—have turned Peterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, into a YouTube sensation and a bestselling author in several Western countries.

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19 ... mysticism/

Jesus! The way he talks reminds me of Joe's abusive father in You Were Never Really Here.

Animavore wrote:'Wrecks' him does he? While 'schooling' Ben, no less. Did anyone get 'owned'?

Did these people all go to the Wayne's World college?I

Some hyperbole in the video titles, yes.

Rumraket wrote:Those videos are sadly mislabeled in that Harris isn't talking about Jordan Peterson, so it's rather misleading. But I agree with what he says, and I think it fits well as a description of JP, and Ben Shapiro is clearly full of shit.

I thought he was referring to Peterson in the first one. From the video title, I assumed he was commenting on his podcast interview with Peterson... the one that Harris found disappointing. But it might be that I'm wrong and that the YouTube video is mislabeled. My apologies if that's the case.

An informative lecture at the UofT to his students

I have watched from lecture 18 to the end. Plus the first two. Not sure I am ready for the next "religious" ones - lectures 3 and 4.

I saw a Jordan Peterson thread on Reddit today. Read a few comments to see what the deal was, saw a "red pill" comment made in seriousness, which ended all my curiosity.

I watched one clip of him a while ago banging on about how your (the students he was talking to) time is worth at least $30 an hour, so any time that you spend watching TV or playing videogames rather than working on your career is money thrown away. I remember thinking what simplistic bullshit this is, the idea that humans could productively spend every waking hour doing things that will lead to future returns, and don't require any downtime. The fact that this was coming from a supposed clinical psychologist makes it all the more worse.

SafeAsMilk wrote:I saw a Jordan Peterson thread on Reddit today. Read a few comments to see what the deal was, saw a "red pill" comment made in seriousness, which ended all my curiosity.

Yeah, he seems to have carved a niche of angry, low self-esteem males (I think unintentionally, to be fair to him). I can't help but think that 10 years ago, the equivalent young men would have been on pick-up artist websites talking about all of the women they'd been bothering that week.

I'm With Stupid wrote:I watched one clip of him a while ago banging on about how your (the students he was talking to) time is worth at least $30 an hour, so any time that you spend watching TV or playing videogames rather than working on your career is money thrown away. I remember thinking what simplistic bullshit this is, the idea that humans could productively spend every waking hour doing things that will lead to future returns, and don't require any downtime. The fact that this was coming from a supposed clinical psychologist makes it all the more worse.

To be fair, it's not a bad piece of advice for someone who's having trouble with motivation, though the idea is by no means novel. I haven't seen the clip obviously, but I don't think it implies that you can never take breaks ever, just that you should be more purposeful about it.

romansh wrote:An informative lecture at the UofT to his students

That lecture is about an hour and 45 minutes in length. I watched about seven minutes of it and concluded that there's maybe 15 minutes of useful tidbits of education in it for me, if that. 15% is a bad signal-to-noise. Since I didn't get a clue within those seven minutes of the salient points of the lecture, I concluded that I either understand them already (since I am not an undergraduate psych student) or that there aren't any. You can't expect someone to sit through an hour and 45 minutes of that just to admire Jordan Peterson's lecturing style unless you give your review of whatever salient points you think he made, but maybe you find that it's too much work, or that there really is no finding the salient points in all the mess. Or maybe that was not your intention in posting the video. There are professors who use their lecterns as pulpits, and no, I don't think Peterson is using his lectern that way. I might have to watch more of him to be sure. I will say this: There's interesting discussion to be had on the personality trait of openness or curiosity, and we don't need Peterson to help us along, here.

As far as I can tell, the most interesting thing about Peterson at the moment is not his work in psychology, but the way he's parlaying that into his fifteen minutes of media darling-hood. Wake me up in five years if people outside his field are still dropping his name.

From the Current Affairs article linked in the OP:

A more important reason why Peterson is “misinterpreted” is that he is so consistently vague and vacillating that it’s impossible to tell what he is “actually saying.”

If that carries over to his academic lectures, his students are being taken for a ride, too. It's not a work of genius to take a bunch of jargon from personality theory and mill it into "Twelve Rules for Living" or whatever it is. Seeing that there's a market ready for it is a smart move. Nobody ever published "Rules for Living" before, did they? If last year there weren't crowds of kids needing a brand new set of rules for living, well, there are, now.

I thought where he got the meat ... and started talking specifically about intelligence, was interesting. Probably around the 50 min mark.

romansh wrote:I thought where he got the meat ... and started talking specifically about intelligence, was interesting. Probably around the 50 min mark.

Don't be coy, romansh. What did he have to say? Is the problem that you want somebody else to tell you what he said? Why don't you just tell us what you think he said, and then, if we think your take is interesting, we can follow up by listening for the details. Posting a link to a video that one has to dig around in is too easy. If there's something new to be said about intelligence, which I doubt, then we'll see it in your take on what he had to say. If nobody can agree on what he said, then I guess we know what that means.

Cito di Pense wrote:

romansh wrote:I thought where he got the meat ... and started talking specifically about intelligence, was interesting. Probably around the 50 min mark.

Don't be coy, romansh. What did he have to say? Is the problem that you want somebody else to tell you what he said? Why don't you just tell us what you think he said, and then, if we think your take is interesting, we can follow up by listening for the details. Posting a link to a video that one has to dig around in is too easy. If there's something new to be said about intelligence, which I doubt, then we'll see it in your take on what he had to say. If nobody can agree on what he said, then I guess we know what that means.

If I had to guest, I bet there's a part that says free will doesn't exist.

Things I thought were interesting .. from memory:
1) IQ tests have the best correlates with life outcomes than any other factor. If we don't believe in IQ then we may as well throw out the concept of psychology.
2) IQ correlates strongly (or at least as the subject matter goes) with transmission speeds in nerves. We're not responsible for how quickly our nerves "conduct" or transmit signals.
3) Training on IQ tests only marginally improves the results and is not transferable from one type of IQ test to another
4) He speculates that the improvement in population IQ over the last century is due to improvement in diet. And the best thing we can do to improve intelligence is improve diet in childhood. He claimed that IQ improves by a couple of points by each year of breast feeding.
5) He briefly discussed job happiness with respect to IQ. eg if you are the smartest person in the room you probably should be in another room. If you have the lowest IQ in the room you might be more happy in another room also.
6) The other metrics like conscientiousness are notoriously difficult to measure. Having said that conscientiousness was a necessary ingredient for the senior management type jobs.
7) He said there is no such thing as emotional intelligence (but he did not expand on that). It would seem it correlates with agreeableness.
8) He talked about where in the US military it is illegal to hire anyone with an IQ of less than 83 (if I remember correctly).
9) He showed a list of types of jobs/positions and the IQs that could be correlated
10) He also mused on the fact that about 10% of the population has an IQ of less than 85 and that we somehow need to accommodate them in our increasingly technological world.

You will have to watch it for yourself Cito.


Your "guest" would be terribly wrong Scott, regarding free will. This is where he disagreed with Sam Harris

3) Is wrong isn't it?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22353021

These findings suggest that prior exposure to the WAIS-IV results in significant score increments. These gains reflect practice effects instead of genuine intellectual changes, which may lead to errors in clinical judgment.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2955045/

Practice effects are prominent particularly in the early phase of high-frequency repetitive cognitive testing of healthy well-performing subjects.

romansh wrote:
You will have to watch it for yourself Cito.

Do you think he said anything new about intelligence? No? After all, he was lecturing to a room full of undergraduates.

I should waste a couple of hours of my time to see that? His tag line should be, "Are you not entertained?"

Jordan Peterson and 12 rules? We've been there, and done that:

Smart people seem to do better at things that require smart people. Video at 11.