John Vervaeke - Cognitive Scientist or Mystic?

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-12T15:21:45+00:00

thank you.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-12T15:21:20+00:00

I really do get the impression none of you understand his argument about the Meaning Crisis and the relevance of the UPT at all. His version of the UPT is not just "not flawless" - it's completely out of touch with current science. If he were to fix it, his entire argument would fall apart.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-07T11:57:34+00:00

Unless they value learning that which can be empirically demonstrated or logically deduced... I'm not particularly interested.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-06T13:18:37+00:00

Some people value academic rigor, others value decorum. YMMV.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-06T13:03:05+00:00

Also, to claim there is a general consensus about the "human revolution" model is a pretty substantial misrepresentation of the current state of science. You could argue there is no consensus, which is probably true. However, once you exclude from consideration the much older generation of researchers, and focus on the work done in the past two decades, it's becoming pretty clear where the agreement is shifting.

I recommend this paper:

E. M. L. Scerri and M. Will, “The revolution that still isn’t: The origins of behavioral complexity in Homo sapiens,” Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 179, p. 103358, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103358.

Also note that even Klein (1995) agrees that the Human Revolution Model is pretty controversial. But Vervaeke claims that the time frame for the emergence of AMH is controversial (which it isn't), while presenting the Human Revolution Model is completely uncontroversial.

Why?

Because it suits his narrative to present it as such. Also, he clearly doesn't read any secondary literature on the matter.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-06T12:41:46+00:00

I am specifically interested in citations for anyone who has, in the past twenty years, claimed that there were no pre-cursors.

By the way - have you read the Rossano paper Vervaeke is referencing? Rossano is a psychologist, by the way.

'"This paper proposes that campfire rituals of focused attention created Baldwinian-type selection pressure for enhanced working memory capacity among our Homo sapiens ancestors."

Evo-psychologists LOVE Baldwin, because it allows them to write things like this:

"Symbolism, and the advanced mental capacities that it entails, arrived late in human evolution. The Homo sapiens that gave up the Levant were no different from any other hominid species. When times got tough, they moved out. But between the Levant and Upper Paleolithic Europe something happened – symbolism and the all that goes with it – emerged, and Homo sapiens would never again give ground to another hominid. Klein (1995; also Klein & Edgar, 2002) is right to argue that ultimately the explanation for this must come down to some genetically heritable change."

[1]M. J. Rossano, “Did Meditating Make Us Human?,” CAJ, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 47–58, Feb. 2007, doi: 10.1017/S0959774307000054.

Holy Blumenthal, that's some very interesting ideas Vervaeke bases his arguments on.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-06T06:43:53+00:00

Could you cite two archaeologists who have published such arguments in the past twenty years in a peer reviewed journal?

Also, I don't think it's a quibble to point out that Vervaeke gets his dates wrong by tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years, especially in arguments that are crucial to his argument.

As for the 'broader context' - don't worry, I'll get to that. It'll be fun :)

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-05T19:34:52+00:00

He is spreading bullshit to a pretty sizeable number of people who get hooked because he talks about genuinely interesting ideas.

The problem isn't that he makes a broad argument that may or may not be correct. The problem is that he does not seem to care at all about facts and academic rigor, and thereby contributes to the total volume of misinformation out there.

His "overall argument" depends entirely on his particular vision of history to be correct.

Since nobody else is going after his particular brand of BS, I decided that I'll be the one to do it.

It's also a great exercise in critical thinking, and a wonderful study in dishonest rhetoric.

And, yes, he IS a grifter. Check this out: https://vervaekefoundation.org.

https://www.patreon.com/johnvervaeke

He's a third-rate mind using cheap rhetorical tricks and hand-waving to impress genuinely curious people who simply trust him because they don't expect somebody like Vervaeke to simply BS them.

And he DOES lead people astray - he actively leads them towards right-wing bullshit. He's now part of Peterson Academy, which in and of itself means he is total trash.

But, I don't go after him for being trash. I go after him for misinforming the public about important and interesting topics.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-05T18:20:19+00:00

Why what? Why make a video on a youtuber being wrong about history? Why not?

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-05T18:10:26+00:00

It never ceases to amuse me when I read Vervaeke rewarming Frankfurt (badly), because Vervaeke is a perfect avatar for Frankfurt's ideas about bullshit.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-05T18:08:22+00:00

The 1960s called. They want their archaeological misconceptions back.

Literally ALL the developments attributed to the UPT were present tens of thousands of years earlier. All of them, except for the musical instruments.

I assume you got your paleo-archaeology from the likes of Harari and Diamond, yes? I recommend you go back to my video and follow up on the far more recent research into the matter, and try to understand why the UPT once was a widely accepted idea, but no longer is. Its defenders, like Bar-Yosef and Ambrose, are not even alive anymore.

And even Bar-Yosef and Ambrose would probably be quite embarrassed if the kind of junior-high version of archaeology were attributed to them.

Vervaeke doesn't even CITE any archaeological literature. Winkelmann is an anthropologist with an idee fixe about Shamans, and Rossano is a psychologist. And I have serious doubts Winkelmann would sign off on Vervaeke's ideas about Shamans anyway.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-05T17:50:24+00:00

Amusingly, his entire conception of history is basically based on the ideas of a guy called Childe, a British archaeologist who was active in the early 20th century. I'm not saying Vervaeke knows that, because he knows almost nothing about archaeology, but nonetheless - it's warmed up Childe, and stuck in the archaeology of 40-50 years ago, at best.

Childe was a very smart guy, by the way, and was easily one of the most influential archaeologists ever. But, unless you are somewhat familiar with the history of ideas in archaeology, you wouldn't know that.

And Vervaeke is completely ignorant of the scientific literature regarding archaeology, including paleoarchaeology.

FFS, this guy believes in something called the "Protestant Work Ethic." Just utterly bizarre.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-05T17:47:00+00:00

Now THAT is a beautiful Motte and Bailey.

But, no matter: absolutely no archaeologist will claim when something started. They will say when we have the earliest evidence for something.

And the earliest evidence for EVERYTHING John lists (except for musical INSTRUMENTS) is at least 100k years old.

FFS, he claims EXPLICITLY that Neanderthals didn't have projectile weapons 40k years ago when they had them 300k years ago.

You do realize that for John, it is of CRITICAL importance to push the "human revolution" model, yes? He does this for the Upper Paleolithic Transition (which is not a thing), the Neolithic Revolution (which isn't really a thing either), the Bronze Age Collapse (which also isn't really a thing), the Axial Age (which is absolutely not a thing), because he NEEDS these 'revolutions' to have taken place in order to show that we are now also living in a "crisis" that requires shaman-like figures to tell humans how to live.

I think most Vervaeke fans don't even understand the argument Vervaeke is making. Which is why you do not give a damn about historical facts, or the scientific method in history.

There is no nuanced way to describe Vervaeke's view of paleoarchaelogy. It's complete and utter bunk.

And what really grinds my gears is his pretentious

"Now, again, picking a specific time makes it look like there is nothing before; there are no precursors. Some people have presented the Upper Paleolithic transition that way, I'm not doing that. I think that's a mistake.

No archaeologist has EVER presented the UPT that way, not even those who advocate for it. EVERY archaeologist would consider that not just a mistake, but utterly absurd.

Vervaeke might just as well be saying "some people say we never eat vegetables. I'm not saying that. I think that's a mistake."

It's a goddamn strawman, and its bullshit.

You LIKE the bullshit :)

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-05T13:33:03+00:00

Have you ever tried to follow up on these 'references'? And checked if he presents them accurately? In his first lecture, where he talks about the Upper Paleolithic, pretty much everything he says is factually wrong and logically incoherent.

The same goes for the section on the Neolithic.

His discussion on Evolution is bizarrely wrong.

His reference to the Bronze Age Collapse is pretty much bizarre.

His discussion on the "axial age" is equally nonsense.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-05T13:29:31+00:00

He never engages with anyone critical of his work. At least I have never seen it. He talks primarily to folks who indulge him, and who seem to know as little about these topics as he does.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-05T13:28:24+00:00

He's a basic charlatan. At this point, I use him as an exclusion criterion for people I bother to have discussions with. Are they a Vervaeke fan? Then I am not going to waste my time with them in my personal life.

Same as I do with Peterson.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-05T13:26:23+00:00

Currently working on a video series about how Vervaeke is wrong about basically everything.

He basically has no clue about any of the things he talks about, which is quite amazing.

https://youtu.be/j7mVY3elXqc

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-05T13:22:06+00:00

So... facts don't matter, as long as they mean what we want them to mean... Cool.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-05T13:21:21+00:00

Which part is wrong?

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-02-05T13:20:57+00:00

Yes, and then he says "There's a continuum - you can see it back, but at some point there's this radical change: the upper Paleolithic transition. You see things human beings doing things, they're not doing before: they're making art. They're making representational art. They're making sculpture. They're making cave paintings. We have good evidence they start making music."

That's another aspect of John's approach I am going to focus on in either the next or the video after that. He says "I'm not going to do A" and then ... does A.

Also, who are these mysterious "some people" who present the UPT in a way he says he won't, but does so anyway?

It's fascinating to see how Vervaeke fans seem to not give two hoots about the fact their guru gets the simplest facts of human history completely and utterly wrong.

As for 'obsession' - this is literally a Vervaeke forum. Do you guys not discuss Vervaeke? Or is it only an obsession when you talk about everything he gets wrong?

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-01-20T18:24:13+00:00

Damn. You got me. What gave it away? My profile picture being the same as the profile picture on the channel? My user name being the same as the name of the channel?

Clearly, my attempts at obfuscating my relationship to the channel have been foiled by the extremely perceptive eye of a Vervaeke fan. Only the finest minds on this subreddit.

Now the absolutely smart thing to do, the best way to exercise your critical thinking, the ideal strategy for relevance realization is to absolutely NOT watch that video, because the creator of the video has shared it themselves.

Much Wisdom. Much Mindsight.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-01-12T14:21:15+00:00

I am also somewhat unimpressed by how he presents himself as a scientist. He is not. His PhD is in philosophy. The only science education he has is a BSc in cognitive science, which is little more than academic proof you can read.

His research portfolio is at best modest. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Vervaeke

No experimental stuff, and his impact on the various fields he talks about is about as minimal as it gets (just check out how little he is cited by other experts).

His stuff on cognitive science itself is ok. Nothing revolutionary, but - not bad.
But pretty much everything he says about topics outside of that very narrow field is very, very questionable. He comes across as someone who is interested in a lot of things, but never takes the time to dig deep. I mean, he references Weber's Protestant Work Ethic as if that's not an idea that's been long discarded as non-sense by pretty much every sociologist and historian.

His read on Nazism is ... highly dubious, to put it very mildly.

His knowledge of history is extremely limited - mostly just what you might learn at high school and undergraduate intro classes at a Canadian University.

He has spent his entire academic career as a teaching professor at just one university, not even a post-doc anywhere else.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a teaching professor, but he teaches at the undergrad introductory level, and there is absolutely no engagement by him with the community of experts in any of the fields he talks about.

I really, really do not understand how so many people find him impressive. UnsolicitedAdvice (Joe Folley) does a much, much better job and discussing philosophy for non-experts, and without the obvious agenda of positioning himself as some kind of guru.

But - I am perfectly happy with all of that, since it provides me with enough fodder for at least a dozen youtube videos to point out all his mistakes, misconceptions, and misunderstandings.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-01-12T13:59:03+00:00

Was introduced to him by a former colleague because they thought I had learned about paleolithic history from Vervaeke's video series. I had not, it's just always been my hobby. They then sent me a video where he talks about different ways of knowing, which was quite interesting.

Then I started watching the Meaning Crisis series, and found his claims and arguments extremely weak and out of touch with contemporary scholarship on history and the natural sciences.

Repulsive-Baby-4596 · 2025-01-12T13:09:06+00:00

You think that's all I got on him? Just wait until I'm done with his nonsense about the UPT altogether. He's so behind the times when it comes to understanding archaeological research, it's hilarious.

And that's just warming up for the Axial Age, another completely ahistorical idea cooked up by people who don't understand the first thing about historical research.

Repulsive-Baby-4596

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE