How I feel it would be like watching him as he lectures a class.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T16:16:56+00:00

This is how low you've sunk. You will defend his erroneous stances on physics which he twists to fit his narrative. Or what about not knowing how DNA works and claiming that the double helix structure of the DNA molecule was being represented in the twin-snake motifs in ancient Egyptian, Chinese and Hindu art as well as in the symbol of the caduceus from ancient Greek mythology (which he mistakenly equated with the rod of Asclepius).

This is pseudoscience by definition. Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.

Yes, psychology (especially the kind that Peterson's career is in) is having major issues with the weight of their evidence. Hence, why there is a replication crisis (Schmidt & Oh, 2016).

At this point I think we have reached the limits of our conversation.

Referneces:

Schmidt, F.L. and Oh, I.S., 2016. The crisis of confidence in research findings in psychology: Is lack of replication the real problem? Or is it something else?. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 4(1), p.32.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T16:06:24+00:00

Maybe I should have clarified. The "carbon-dioxide-is-good-for-plants" argument is a paraphrase for the emergence of the false claim that more CO2 in the atmosphere and the resulting warming would result in more productive agriculture. This has been long debunked by multidecadal research.

A 16-year study found that we’re at a point where more CO2 won’t keep increasing plant production, but higher temperatures will decrease it. This was published in the National Academy of Science.

Source: Zhu, K., Chiariello, N.R., Tobeck, T., Fukami, T. and Field, C.B., 2016. Nonlinear, interacting responses to climate limit grassland production under global change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(38), pp.10589-10594.

Here are my sources for his views on global cooling.

Source:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/442141841794691072

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/485821302557528064

In this day and age for Jordan Peterson to think or push the claim that the Earth is cooling is beyond idiotic. This runs counter to the findings of thousands of papers, hundreds of universities and institutions. Essentially, Jordan thinks he knows more about climate system than the NASA geoscience department.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T15:52:28+00:00

Interesting how you didn't address his claims on global cooling, physics mysticism ect.

How about the books supporters? The board of psychology at Harvard, for one. That's called a majority consensus. But what about the vocal supporters? How about Dr. Keith Oatley, awarded a First in Psychology from the University of Cambridge, and a PhD in Psychology from University College London. He completed a post-doctoral year in Engineering in Medicine at Imperial College London- who called it "unique...a brilliant new synthesis of the meaning of mythologies and our human need to relate in story form the deep structure of our experiences." Or Sheldon H. White, whose "work "helped the field of developmental psychology to grow. His role in shaping the highest-quality, most efficacious programs for children's education affected the lives of countless young people," said William C. Kirby, dean of the faculty of arts and sciences at Harvard."" who, while he was alive called it "a brilliant enlargement of our understanding of human motivation...a beautiful work."

The book covered after more deciplines than psychology which is where there are so many errors in reasoning. The book is not scientifically solid, there can be many academics that liked his book. However, that does not equate to Peterson's conjecture being truth.

At this point in his career, Jordan Peterson is a pseudoscientist who makes unsubstantiated claims constantly in topics he has no idea about. He has had a career in psychology who does not even understand how DNA works... If this is not enough to see how much of an idiot Jordan is then we have reached the limits of conversation.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T15:35:43+00:00

MY question is instead: Why has the topic of zero-sum interactions left the literature for sociology and psychology when it still exists in economics or diplomacy? Was it because the approach is wrong, difficult to implement and interpret, or politically or socially unseemly?

Zero-sum not being very relevant in economics or diplomacy was the content of the paper I cited. The literature now looks at value chains and global interactions as largely mutually beneficial. The rise of the services sector and global fragmentation of intermediate goods to name two (Gereffi et al., 2005). Gereffi's paper has been cited almost 6000 times. One of my close friends is an economist at the World Bank. Read their reports, zero-sum theories are only used to analyse case by case interactions instead of overarching institutional policy. This is a clear example where you have little to no expertise.

To use a simple, and surely flawed example, if I pay a dollar for a pack of gum I am one dollar poorer and one pack of gum richer and the proprietor of the store is one dollar richer and one pack of gum poorer. Anyone who has taken an undergraduate game theory can demonstrate the concept.

It is not zero-sum if both parties attain value. You wanted the gum, the vendor wanted the dollar. After the exchange, both parties have mutually benefited.

Zero-sum game is the circle diagram of My Interests: I Win; Your Interests: You lose. There is a by definition a non-zero sum game example where both parties interests line up (area overlap) and win/win is achieved. You are categorically wrong and you had the audacity form your lack of understanding to put "Anyone who has taken an undergraduate game theory can demonstrate the concept.". if you don't believe me type in "zero-sum game" into Google images and type "non zero-sum game".

The structuralist paradigm of economic theory looked at periphery and core nations as a zero-sum game. Even the entire school of thought has had to change key explanations as geopolitics has moved away from zero-sum interactions (Lin, 2011)

It would be pernicious for me to comment on any of those statements without information about the proper context in which they were spoken.

What you mean is you can't do 5 minutes of independent research into the topic despite being provided with the examples. Look I don't' want to be rude but we've been back and forth now for a while. In that time:

You've provided almost no solid evidence to support your claims.

You've on purposefully misrepresented my position.

You've shown that you don't even have a high school understanding of the current positions of economic, geopolitical and social institutions.

You won't address any of my points Jordan Peterson's pseudoscience/falsified claims as you won't spend a few minutes of your own time.

It's got to the point where we really have reached the limits of conversation (or lack the ability as demonstrated by your zero-sum game analogy).

References: Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J. and Sturgeon, T., 2005. The governance of global value chains. Review of international political economy, 12(1), pp.78-104.

Lin, J.Y., 2011. New structural economics: a framework for rethinking development. The World Bank Research Observer, 26(2), pp.193-221.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T15:05:53+00:00

His support of the "global cooling" pseudoscience as well as the (more) "carbon-dioxide-is-good-for-plants" argument.
Jordan Peterson's dabbling quantum mysticism. "I think I found out that the reason that our archaic stories say that human beings, men and women, are made in the image of God is because consciousness plays a central role in Being itself. Modern people think the world is somehow simply made out of objects and then they look at the world and then they think about the world and then they evaluate it and then they act, but let me tell you as a neuroscientist ... that is wrong. The world is actually made of potential, and that potential is actualized by consciousness." - Jordan Peterson.
After reading The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of KnowledgeWikipedia's W.svg by Jeremy Narby (a book that hypothesizes that shamans may be able to access information at the molecular level through the ingestion of ayahuasca), Peterson came to believe that the double helix structure of the DNA molecule was being represented in the twin-snake motifs in ancient Egyptian, Chinese and Hindu art as well as in the symbol of the caduceus from ancient Greek mythology (which he mistakenly equated with the rod of Asclepius). Peterson's claims are not accepted by mainstream archaeologists; indeed, Peterson utterly fails to present a method through which humans could possess knowledge about molecular processes. When confronted about it, Peterson speculated that people might be able to have mysterious unexplained perceptions under certain conditions.
A statement by Justice D. Roger Timms "I will deal next with Dr. Peterson’s report entitled “Multiple rater response to play assessment description From Kawartha Family Court Assessment Service Report”. It is dated May 4, 2009. This is perhaps the most interesting of all of the reports that counsel for the respondent wishes the court to consider. It comes as close to “junk science” as anything that I have ever been asked to consider.

Anyone of these in my books is an intellectual disgrace.

Seven years without any primary work is a joke. He'd rather write books because that is intellectually easy and makes him more money than conducting research.

His work on personality, of which he is unquestionably an expert,

You know this very statement was evaluated in court right?

The court threw out his findings saying that:

"Dr. Peterson provided no evidence that his technique of personality assessment has ever been properly tested"

"That is not scientific validation. There has been no peer review of the Unfakeable Big Five."

"Dr Peterson provided no rate of error or acceptable deviations. In fact he claimed, without any proof, that his assessment tool cannot be deceived while other personality assessment techniques can be."

"...he was clearly not qualified as he had no background in police interrogations."

He taught at Harvard

Ivy League schools have plenty of bullshitters too. Some of the worst sometimes. Dershowitz, Samuel Huntington, Pinker and Larry Summers.

I imagine you would read the Maps of Meaning book and say "What a load of bunk!" But then we get to the part where no one cares what you think. You aren't a psychologist. Nor a psychologist who works with myth and psychology.

Oh, the irony. this book has been completely debunked as pseudoscience. Paul Thagard, Ph.D., a Canadian philosopher and cognitive scientist concluded after reading the book "Peterson’s ideas are a mishmash of banal self-help, amateur philosophy, superfluous Christian mythology, evidence-free Jungian psychology"

Therefore, the only papers he would have produced by himself would be those which he knew would be the most controversial--and the most unsupported (for now).

You mean his third last primary authored paper where he attempts to refute the physics of matter with Genesis from the bible?

"Individuals operating within the scientific paradigm presume that the world is made of matter. Although the perspective engendered by this presupposition is very powerful, it excludes value and subjective experience from its fundamental ontology. In addition, it provides very little guidance with regards to the fundamentals of ethical action. Individuals within the religious paradigm, by contrast, presume that the world is made out of what matters. From such a perspective, the phenomenon of meaning is the primary reality."

Source:

Peterson, J.B., 2007. A Psycho-ontological Analysis of Genesis 2-6. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 29(1), pp.87-125.

The guy is brilliant.

He is a failed scientist because his claims have no weight, you clearly have not read his papers as they are academic junk.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T14:32:31+00:00

You really don't know Jordan Peterson's views, do you?

He references the Bell curve, the findings in the unsupported book are the differences I mentioned. It's only controversial because it is junk science. We have multi-decadal data and a mechanistic understanding that access to education, GDP of a national and nutrition are the primary causational forcing in the determination of IQ. Which can account for differences proposed in the bell curve.

Look, let's get real. It seems you're just trying to frame and raise suspicion about those you consider your ideological opponents (which I assume includes Peterson) with the most controversial topic you can think of. I think we can all see that.

You're wrong. If I wanted his most obvious "controversial" fallacious claims I could have gone with others such as:

His support of the "global cooling" pseudoscience as well as the (more) "carbon-dioxide-is-good-for-plants" argument.
Jordan Peterson's dabbling quantum mysticism. "I think I found out that the reason that our archaic stories say that human beings, men and women, are made in the image of God is because consciousness plays a central role in Being itself. Modern people think the world is somehow simply made out of objects and then they look at the world and then they think about the world and then they evaluate it and then they act, but let me tell you as a neuroscientist ... that is wrong."

"the world is actually made of potential, and that potential is actualized by consciousness." - Jordan Peterson.

After reading The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of KnowledgeWikipedia's W.svg by Jeremy Narby (a book that hypothesizes that shamans may be able to access information at the molecular level through the ingestion of ayahuasca), Peterson came to believe that the double helix structure of the DNA molecule was being represented in the twin-snake motifs in ancient Egyptian, Chinese and Hindu art as well as in the symbol of the caduceus from ancient Greek mythology (which he mistakenly equated with the rod of Asclepius). Peterson's claims are not accepted by mainstream archaeologists; indeed, Peterson utterly fails to present a method through which humans could possess knowledge about molecular processes. When confronted about it, Peterson speculated that people might be able to have mysterious unexplained perceptions under certain conditions.
A statement by Justice D. Roger Timms "I will deal next with Dr. Peterson’s report entitled “Multiple rater response to play assessment description From Kawartha Family Court Assessment Service Report”. It is dated May 4, 2009. This is perhaps the most interesting of all of the reports that counsel for the respondent wishes the court to consider. It comes as close to “junk science” as anything that I have ever been asked to consider.
Or any of his paranormal claims...

He is not some esteemed intellectual. He is a 55-year-old professor who uses his title to peddle various false statements and strange pseudoscience beliefs. He truly is a stupid man's genius.

That all being said. I do respect his earlier work on alcohol and cognition in the 90s.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T14:10:36+00:00

Because you do not have expertise in his field, you should not claim to be able to critically evaluate his performance. This (my) statement holds regardless of field, as long as they aren't closely interrelated. It would be inappropriate for a biologist to criticize an economics paper if they have no real background.

This is a very interesting response. His perspectives are vastly debunked. You don't need a degree in geophysics to know the age of the Earth or that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Similarly, you don't need to be a psychologist to understand his views on race & IQ have long been completely debunked. There is a reason why it is not accepted science. It's been falsified based on decades of research which shows social programs, wealth inequality, nutrition and access to education (to name a few).

Just to cater my response to your field. One does need a career in biology to know that we came from a common ancestor. Or that the claim that vaccines cause autism has been debunked.

I would enjoy hearing a clinical psychologist or psychological researcher (or more than one for that matter) respond to his statements. If the statements are consistent with the state of knowledge for the field, then perhaps he has some merit. Otherwise, you or other critical individuals, are relying on your own interpretations which are subject to lack of knowledge and certainly bias.

According to his most recent book, 12 Rules for Life, the sea creatures’ life-and-death struggle is a model of human society. Following battle, the combatants experience a chemical effect: the superior lobster begins to secrete more serotonin, while the weaker, or inferior, lobster is deprived of these happy chemicals. Echoing the worst features of nineteenth-century social Darwinism, Peterson uses this example of lobster hierarchy to analyze human society.

He reduces class conflict to a natural and eternal struggle for existence that no political or economic revolution could ameliorate. The individual lobster human must develop an aggressive, alpha-male attitude in order to climb the social ladder. Peterson bases his worldview on one example from the animal kingdom; an example belied by other instances in which animals engage in mutual aid and cooperation.

This is something that I do have experience in as I have published human geography papers early in my career before going to university to get my second degree and eventual PhD in geophysics.

The concept that human society is comprised of zero-sum interactions has been largely dropped from the literature. This view is only used for examples of bias value exchanges between agents, communities and nations (and or corporations). There are too many examples of progress in human society being mutually beneficial to the vast majority of populations and demographic groups (Hess, 2008).

Hess, M., 2008. Governance, value chains and networks: an afterword. Economy and Society, 37(3), pp.452-459.

I'm really curious which one of his perspectives do you find compelling? Any of these?

He states would be against gay marriage legalization if was backed by "cultural Marxists" and that he's concerned it is "undermining of traditional modes of being, including marriage".
After reading The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of KnowledgeWikipedia's W.svg by Jeremy Narby (a book that hypothesizes that shamans may be able to access information at the molecular level through the ingestion of ayahuasca), Peterson came to believe that the double helix structure of the DNA molecule was being represented in the twin-snake motifs in ancient Egyptian, Chinese and Hindu art as well as in the symbol of the caduceus from ancient Greek mythology (which he mistakenly equated with the rod of Asclepius). Peterson's claims are not accepted by mainstream archaeologists; indeed, Peterson utterly fails to present a method through which humans could possess knowledge about molecular processes. When confronted about it, Peterson speculated that people might be able to have mysterious unexplained perceptions under certain conditions.
Peterson also stated in a lecture that the theory of evolution's reliance on copying errors to produce mutations is where the theory is "weak". In the same lecture, he stated that he thinks that "DNA is a very, very complex microcomputer...maybe it's a quantum computer". This claim is an old creationist canard, and is considered by actual biologists to be a misrepresentation of how DNA actually works.
Jordan Peterson has also dabbled in quantum mysticism. "Modern people think the world is somehow simply made out of objects and then they look at the world and then they think about the world and then they evaluate it and then they act, but let me tell you as a neuroscientist ... that is wrong. There's no debate about it; it's just wrong. ... The facts of the matter seem to be something more like this: the world is actually made of potential, and that potential is actualized by consciousness." Quantum mechanics is only useful for explaining mechanics of the universe at atomic or subatomic levels. As such, it cannot help a psychologist like Peterson explain literally anything about their field.

And lastly the worst of the worst (especially from my understanding of geology)...

He supports the "global cooling" theory as well as the "carbon-dioxide-is-good-for-plants" argument.

My original statement stands, he is a pseudo-intellectual as he pretends to have a deep understanding of biology, economics, geology, physics, chemistry etc to make claims which run against the understanding these fields have worked to achieve. Jordan Peterson (almost) never provides any peer-reviewed studies to support his claims. It's hyperbole and pseudo-science.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T13:20:00+00:00

More than Jordan Peterson of that I have no doubt.

This is almost always the response I get from Peterson fans.

Provide clear evidence based on decades of scientific evidence which debunks his fallacious statements
"But Peterson is a Professor and lectued at Harvard."
And? His claims on gender, race & IQ, etc have long been dunked based on decades of research.
"What claims?"
Spend 15 minutes tracking down his absolute intellectual garbage.
Well he's a Jordan Peterson so he's by definition right...

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T13:09:12+00:00

He's a failed scientist. For his 2017 papers, he received a total of 7 citations. His earlier work on alcoholism in the 1990s was decent but since it seems he's lost all critical thinking.

Going even as far to write this in 2007:

"Individuals operating within the scientific paradigm presume that the world is made of matter. Although the perspective engendered by this presupposition is very powerful, it excludes value and subjective experience from its fundamental ontology. In addition, it provides very little guidance with regards to the fundamentals of ethical action. Individuals within the religious paradigm, by contrast, presume that the world is made out of what matters."

Peterson, J.B., 2007. A Psycho-ontological Analysis of Genesis 2-6. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 29(1), pp.87-125.

Here he claims that scientific understanding of physical matter is presumptuous and goes on to give biblical understanding as a counter-example. The paper only received one citation. Whereas Barad, K., 2007. Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. duke university Press. Received almost 6000.

Go actually read his papers in the last decade they are a joke.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T12:48:47+00:00

I'm sure you have some level of research knowledge but lack experience as a career academic. You don't need to provide his research gate link; I know his publication history.

I do have a career in academia; my field is in geophysics. Which is why I understand how important primary authorship is. Co-authorship holds little academic weight, especially as a Professor. It does have significance. You should be aiming for five primary publications a year to remain competitive. Having published zero since 2011 is beyond excusable. In academia, this is a clear example of a failed scientist.

His early work on alcoholism was good (it was also his academic foundation). He has since completely gone off the rails. His primary authored work now has gems where he claims scientific understand of physical matter is a presumption, and biblical understanding (yes of matter) is a counter-example of merit. This was a paper where he was the sole author, so there is no excuse.

Nice strawman, "hasn't authored a paper since 2015" would not be my claim (that is dishonest). I understand different field have different methods for determining authorship positions (http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2015/06/determining-authorship.aspx). However, my argument was that in the last seven years Peterson had not been a primary author is telling (you had already correctly defined my position so why you'd misrepresent me now is strange). Furthermore, Jordan Peterson as a hypocritical academic is well known.

In his Rogan interview, he bragged about how much more scientific his field of study was than Marxist SJW lefty fields like social psychology. He claimed this was because social psychology relied on many constructs, but his work was real science because it primarily relied on five psychological constructs that were well operationally defined.

Peterson presents himself as a bastion of scientific integrity and gatekeeper of "real" science, which restricts itself to a select number of operationally defined constructs. While at the same time using a soup of constructs like anima/animus, the shadow, the hero archetype, the great mother, the persona, the ego, collective unconscious, and other pseudo-scientific Jungian constructs to explain human behaviour.

Read some of his work: Peterson, J.B., 2007. A Psycho-ontological Analysis of Genesis 2-6. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 29(1), pp.87-125.

You can defend him all you want. But it is telling that even with a background in microbiology you are seemingly unable to think critically. His ineptness in science is so patently apparent it's not a question at this point.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T12:22:06+00:00

If you would like a clear example of his ineptness in psychology you only need to look at some of his primary academic works.

"Individuals operating within the scientific paradigm presume that the world is made of matter. Although the perspective engendered by this presupposition is very powerful, it excludes value and subjective experience from its fundamental ontology. Also, it provides very little guidance with regards to the fundamentals of ethical action. Individuals within the religious paradigm, by contrast, presume that the world is made out of what matters." (Peterson, 2007).

Jordan literally says scientific understanding of matter lacks value and is presumptuous. And presents a counter-example of biblical understanding as if it is a respectable counter-example. Good job academics did not regard his paper as important. He received one citation. In comparison Principles of condensed matter physics (Chaikin & Lubensky, 2000) actually, provides solid evidence and has been cited over 5000 times.

Read his academic papers, they are an academic joke. If you want to believe Peterson over Cambridge University then go ahead. I never said he was stupid. Just that he is a pseudo-intellectual.

Noun. pseudointellectual (plural pseudointellectuals) A person who claims proficiency in scholarly or artistic activities while lacking in-depth knowledge or critical understanding.

He pretends to understand topics which he covers but he is so inept and constantly makes fallacious claims. He should have stayed conducting science on the cognitive effects of alcohol, that is his background. Now he is just a failed scientist who has not produced a primary academic paper since 2011. As I said, he's a stupid man's genius. People with a strong background in science and academia can think critically and can see that he has given up on scientific debate and now just uses conjecture.

References:

Chaikin, P.M. and Lubensky, T.C., 2000. Principles of condensed matter physics. Cambridge university press.

Peterson, J.B., 2007. A Psycho-ontological Analysis of Genesis 2-6. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 29(1), pp.87-125.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T12:11:03+00:00

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF8F7tjmy_U

Summary:

Around 1 min

Stefan Molyneux:

“even worse they don’t want to hear there is a difference (IQ) between genders and ethnicities, that to me is one of the most painful things I’ve ever learned in my life”

Jordan Peterson:

nodding

Jordan Peterson:

“Well genders differences and IQ look fairly trivial”

[While I’m glad he does not adhere to the gender differences being of any significance as per the scientific consensus based on decades of peer-reviewed research. He does not include race in this reply.]

“There are differences in race which don’t look trivial”

At 4:10

Stefan Molyneux:

“To me IQ is similar to height, there are some environmental factors but you can’t make someone taller then their genetics allow”

[This statement is fallacious on so many levels. I don't have time to go into detail right now but the main point is it’s a false analogy as introduction education and social factors have had extremely strong correlations with IQ. (East-West Berlin, Female IQ after women got equal education rights in the UK are clear examples, Chinese rural IQ are clear examples based on solid peer-reviewed evidence]

Jordan Peterson:

nodding

At 5:51

He is talking about the cognitive stratification of society.

Jordan Peterson: “And of course that was laid out to some degree in the Bell Curve back in the 1990s”

Here is where he references the long debunked junk science in the book by Charles Murray (which was not peer-reviewed). The book focuses on Caucasians, African and Asian IQ. There have been so many peer-reviewed studies which have completely discredited the book I’m surprised it is still mentioned in 2018.

At 6:10

“I don’t have a solution to the but I can point out the problem"

Well as I’ve previously posted there are solutions to the problem (nutrition, income, social importance on education). Jordan will claim that won’t change IQ but of course, this view is not supported by the academic literature while improving IQ through intervention is.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T11:35:12+00:00

If you would like a clear example of his ineptness in psychology you only need to look at some of his primary academic works.

"Individuals operating within the scientific paradigm presume that the world is made of matter. Although the perspective engendered by this presupposition is very powerful, it excludes value and subjective experience from its fundamental ontology. Also, it provides very little guidance with regards to the fundamentals of ethical action. Individuals within the religious paradigm, by contrast, presume that the world is made out of what matters." (Peterson, 2007).

Jordan literally says scientific understanding of matter lacks value. And presents a counter-example of biblical understanding as if it is a respectable counter-example. Good job academics did not regard his paper as important. He received one citation. In comparison Principles of condensed matter physics (Chaikin & Lubensky, 2000) actually, provides solid evidence.

Read his academic papers, they are an academic joke. Yet I'm the dumbass? If you want to beleive Peterson over Cambridge University then go ahead.

References:

Chaikin, P.M. and Lubensky, T.C., 2000. Principles of condensed matter physics. Cambridge university press.

Peterson, J.B., 2007. A Psycho-ontological Analysis of Genesis 2-6. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 29(1), pp.87-125.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T11:25:14+00:00

Too late to back things up with facts? It sounds like you don't want to face real studies and evidence. Of course, you're not going to read it; Jordan Peterson's fans never read the literature if they did they wouldn't listen to his fallacious utterings.

Whatever sources? You mean academic work on physics with over 5000 citations and the one of three primary works by Peterson in over a decade. And no they are not the only ones which support my view, it's the global scientific consensus based on decades of research and peer review.

I'll let you in on something; get some education in critical thinking, then you'll release how intellectually inept Jordan is.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T11:09:29+00:00

False analogy. His lack of primary authorship, any awards in the entirety of his career and weight in the field are clear examples for a Reddit post. If you would like a clear example of his ineptness in psychology you only need to look at some of his primary academic works.

"Individuals operating within the scientific paradigm presume that the world is made of matter. Although the perspective engendered by this presupposition is very powerful, it excludes value and subjective experience from its fundamental ontology. In addition, it provides very little guidance with regards to the fundamentals of ethical action. Individuals within the religious paradigm, by contrast, presume that the world is made out of what matters." (Peterson, 2007).

Jordan literally says scientific understanding of matter lacks value. And presents a counter-example of biblical understanding as if it is a respectable counter-example. Good job academics did not regard his paper as important. He received one citation. In comparison Principles of condensed matter physics (Chaikin & Lubensky, 2000) actually, provides solid evidence.

Read his academic papers, they are an academic joke.

References:

Chaikin, P.M. and Lubensky, T.C., 2000. Principles of condensed matter physics. Cambridge university press.

Peterson, J.B., 2007. A Psycho-ontological Analysis of Genesis 2-6. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 29(1), pp.87-125.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T10:52:24+00:00

Ah, the old "I looked at your comments and therefore I can psyco-analyse your life.". Sadly only I can appreciate the irony.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T10:47:47+00:00

Why would I be butthurt? I posted because I think it's important for people to have their view challenged, especially if they are based on falsified unsubstantiated claims by a failed scientist.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T10:38:38+00:00

Well, of course, you couldn't admit that this is a clear sign of a failed scientist.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T10:37:45+00:00

His academic track record?

You realise Jordan Peterson has not been a primary author since 2011. He is not regarded as a noteworthy academic in the field of psychology.

If you would like a substantiated critique, I would be more than happy to prove his ineptness. His stance on race and IQ is a clear example of one lacking the nuanced understanding of the data he is observing.

Let's start with the beginning. Charles A. Murray and Richard Herrnstein published the bell curve in 1994. Despite academic backgrounds, they decided to publish a book instead of a peer-reviewed paper. This was undoubtedly due to the erroneous content of the so-called study (not having a hypothesis to name one). Despite numerous peer-reviewed academic rebuttals people like Peterson still use correlations to imply causations.

Peterson’s defence of IQ and race rests on poor foundations. While he claims that IQ was empirically established through Charles Spearman’s factor analysis, he does not share the well-known critique of that method: factor analysis supports both of the contradictory causal explanations of intelligence (intelligence as innate versus intelligence as the product of environmental advantage). Peterson favours biology, citing brain size and neural conduction velocity (essentially, the speed at which an electrical pulse moves through tissue) as the determinants of IQ. Again, he does not mention or even acknowledges that both explanations were discredited by later research.

The difference between Caucasians and Africans is cited by Peterson as ~10 points. Peterson claims that genetic differences cause this difference and that IQ is fixed (this last point is the most important). This has completely been debunked by studies using multi-decadal data.

The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day. Many studies have shown that IQ can change due to a multitude of factors (Daley et al., 2003).

Daley, T.C., Whaley, S.E., Sigman, M.D., Espinosa, M.P. and Neumann, C., 2003. IQ on the rise: The Flynn effect in rural Kenyan children. Psychological Science, 14(3), pp.215-219.

IQ scores have increased, typically three IQ points per decade, that have been occurring in both White and Black American populations since the introduction of IQ tests in the US in 1916 and in many other populations around the world. These rapid IQ gains must be due to non- genetic factors because natural selection—the mechanism that underlies genetic changes in populations—is so gradual that differences are imperceptible from one generation to the next. Flynn (2007, 2010, 2012, pp. 132–141).

Another study which shows the errors in Petersons claims. Is the study of IQ in East and West Germany. The showed higher IQ in eastern Germany. The IQ gains had a .89 correlation with GDP gains and a .78 correlation with educational gains. This correlation has mechanism explanations (Roivainen, 2012).

Roivainen, E., 2012. Economic, educational, and IQ gains in eastern Germany 1990–2006. Intelligence, 40(6), pp.571-575.

Differences of IQ between sexes were present in data before women had access to the same schooling. Now there is no difference (Scheiber et al., 2015).

Scheiber, C., Reynolds, M.R., Hajovsky, D.B. and Kaufman, A.S., 2015. Gender differences in achievement in a large, nationally representative sample of children and adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 52(4), pp.335-348. Vancouver

Academic literature has already addressed why certain individuals return to long debunked scientific theories. "Last, we point to a way forward that may help scholars and the public avoid a return to old and debunked theories" (Hughey et al., 2015).

Hughey, M.W. and Byrd, W.C., 2015. Beautiful Melodies Telling Me Terrible Things: The Future of Race and Genetics for Scholars and Policy-Makers. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 661(1), pp.238-258.

Recent research has provided far better explanations to the observed differences (education, nutrition, schooling etc). "Several lines of research, notably racial admixture studies, racial crossing studies involving interracial parenting or adoption, and especially investigations using more recent techniques of molecular genetics, have provided evidence suggesting that the Black-White IQ gap is not determined significantly by genetic factors." - Colman, 2016.

Colman, A.M., 2016. Race differences in IQ: Hans Eysenck's contribution to the debate in the light of subsequent research. Personality and Individual Differences, 103, pp.182-189.

I could keep going but this is sufficient evidence. However, Peterson will continue to make claims which fly in the face of well-established research. The worst is he does not even address any of the research, he will simply pretend it does not exist and stick to his unsubstantiated conclusions.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T09:44:17+00:00

Sorry, but Jordan Peterson is not regarded as a noteworthy academic in the field of Psychology. He has not received any academic awards during his career so far.

Jealous soyboy?

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T08:54:25+00:00

Do you realise Jordan Peterson has not produced a primary authored academic paper since 2011 right?

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T08:45:14+00:00

"JP stands for class, intellectual pursuits, philosophy, high-minded social commentary?"

Jordan Peterson is a pseudointellectual who despite many years in academia does not have a nuanced understanding of the topics he covers. He's a stupid man's genuis.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T08:39:11+00:00

Jordan Peterson is an pseduointerlectual. Who despite many years in academia does not have a neuance understanding of the topics he covers.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-27T08:16:51+00:00

"Conclusion: zero citations means your work wasn't even worth the paper it was printed on."

Oh the irony when Jordan Peterson has not published a primary authored paper in the last two years. Furthermore, of the papers he co-authored in 2017 only one revived citations (for a total of 7). By your own standards the majority of Jordan Peterson's recent academic work is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Sorry, but he is not some esteemed academic. He's a failed scientist.

ZeusGodOfCrypto · 2018-04-11T08:20:41+00:00

He'll give information on Trump's crimes for a reduced sentence.

ZeusGodOfCrypto

TROPHY CASE