Jordan Peterson

Your favorite books and links
IlliniDave
Posts: 2273
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by IlliniDave » Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:51 am

7Wb5, thanks for taking the time. I made no such accusation, btw. I think we interpret Peterson quite differently. I'm relieved, honestly, that that's all all there was behind the accusations, since I consider that far short of encouraging or bragging about the smacking around of children by adults. I think in general he makes an excellent point about being consistent and unflagging when they are young. My ex- was the opposite, very inconsistent in maintaining order. I used to get endless grief from her for being too "harsh" because of my predictable consistency, yet she was the only one of us who ever struck them in anger (and "smack" would be an apt term). Interesting that we both interpret Peterson through a lens tinted by the perceived shortcomings of a former SO (or SOs).

Peanut, good golly, what's a poor parent to do in 2018? Luckily my child rearing days are far behind me (I have to wonder if that is the case for the "experts" as well). It is interesting how the expert consensus on child rearing pretty much changes entirely once a generation, and increasingly cedes power to the child. At some point along that continuum things will inevitably become dysfunctional. Unfortunately humans are remarkably resilient to being persuaded by verbal reasoning.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:05 am

@IlliniDave: I agree that there should be consistency, and I also very much agree with Peterson's note that there should be few rules, although for some reason he does not seem to be inclined to go into nearly as much detail on that point ;) I had a sister-in-law-husband, stern and imposing, who ran his household, which included two generally very well-behaved little girls, like a time-out boot camp. One of them didn't line up her shoes facing North in the entrance-way "To the bench!" My children were terrified of him. So, on one occasion while we were all scurrying around getting ready for a wedding, unbeknownst to me, he ordered my son to "Go to the car!" My young son obeyed him and almost had to be taken to the hospital due to heat-stroke. Luckily, I am not inclined towards violence, or the King of Time Out would have gotten a good smacking.

However, I would note that I find it equally misguided when more progressive parents attempt to enforce too many rules at inappropriate level of development through milder means. For instance, when I witness a parent talking fake calmly (as though on quaaludes) about proper nutrition to a two year old screaming for a lollipop in the grocery store. When one of my children attempted such behavior, I often used the method of "mirroring." I would pretend to cry myself while saying something like "I want a cup of coffee." Worked like a charm to knock them out of the level of narcissism which is very natural at that age. Sometimes we would both start laughing.

I can see how it might read like I was implying that Peterson was bragging about smacking children. What I meant to convey is that he was being arrogant, and in my opinion misguided, in putting forward his theory about development related to discipline. He even brings up Skinner's work with rats. Training is not learning. Human beings are highly intelligent creatures. For instance, from a very young age they are perfectly capable of differentiating between what I can't do in the presence of Mr. Jordan Peterson without facing Consequence X vs. what I want to do anyways and can get away with through Means Z. It's kind of funny, or telling, that in the passage concerning the playground I posted above, Peterson imagines the ill-behaved 2 year old saying "Daddy-O" which was stereotypical hipster slang from the 60s era.

I would also like to note for the record that I am very much in favor of high level of paternal involvement in child-rearing, EVEN if the father is very autocratic and true believer in corporal punishment. In fact, in the case of my ex, the event that stands out in my memory, was an occasion where I was attempting to involve him in disciplining our son, and he lost all patience and temper and smacked him hard on the back of the head, and then just left the room. My Iranian "ex" , otoh, in marked contrast to my ex, was a very involved parent, and that was one of the things I liked about him initially. But I do remember him bragging to me on one occasion about he trained his daughters as toddlers to be safe while following him about as he did household repairs, by consistently giving them small smacks, much in the manner Peterson describes. I knew his daughters as teenagers, and although they did have a very warm loving relationship with their father, they had become experts in manipulation and deceit in order to evade his rules which they viewed as too strict. My own daughter lived with us for a while, and after we broke up, she told me that my 18 year old "step-daughter" who had been given a 10 PM curfew although in first year of college, simply sneaked out of the house after her father and I were asleep any given evening. I was not a bit surprised, since I eventually found myself, at the age of 49, escaping to my car and playing "Cherry Bomb" full-blast in reaction to his autocratic, domineering manner :lol:

IlliniDave
Posts: 2273
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by IlliniDave » Wed Sep 05, 2018 7:42 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:05 am
I can see how it might read like I was implying that Peterson was bragging about smacking children.
Okay, well, you were pretty unequivocal about it (based on an admittedly superficial reading), but I'll chalk it up to hyperbole.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:14 am
Another thing that gets lost in what Peterson says in the equal importance of genuine positive reinforcement of good behavior. An example he gives regarding his own son was that after a timeout prompted by a temper tantrum, once the tantrum ran it's course, the boy was welcomed back into the social area with (very explicitly) open arms. Being a disciplinarian is tough work and upsetting. It is too easy to let that carry into the aftermath of a confrontation, and for the adult to be distracted and/or a bit begrudging even after the kid's corrected her/his behavior. I'd be dishonest if I said I was perfect in that regard. My own anecdotal $0.02-worth is that holding even a subtle, possibly unconscious, grudge against a toddler is immensely confusing and difficult on them.

Otherwise, yeah, there are as many flavors of parental failings as there are parents. I can't decide if it is good or bad that we don't get do-overs.

trfie
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:35 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by trfie » Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:25 pm

Campitor wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 12:30 am
He suffers from food allergies which express as autoimmune disorders: severe psoriasis and arthritis. The carnivore diet alleviated all his autoimmune systems as well as his ever present bouts of anxiety and depression.

He arrived at this diet by observing the food experiments carried out by his daughter who was afflicted by the same autoimmune diseases but to a greater degree; she found relief by eating beef only.
Looking at 1 person is not data. That's anecdote. His other positions are based on extensive amounts of data. Let's see the research on how many others he was able to find that were able to stick to a 100% beef diet over a long period of time and not develop colon cancer or other serious medical disease.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:30 pm
All anybody needs to know about the medical establishment is that Pharmaceutical Engineers exist and they like to get paid.
What is this supposed to mean? Everyone in every industry likes to get paid. Aren't car mechanics and plumbers and teachers paid as well? Are you saying no one should get paid? If you don't like a product, then don't buy it. If no one buys it, then it goes out of business.
BRUTE wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:06 pm
what is 7Wannabe5 talking about? the topic is a lifelong skin condition described by one sufferer as:
other problems solved by eating tons of ribeye include AMPUTATION OF THE LIMBS AND BLINDNESS DUE TO DIABETES.

brute couldn't care less about 7Wannabe5's subcutaneous unsprung masses. the topic is that the medical establishment is withholding life saving or quality of life altering diet changes in order to protect their status and their egos.
This is a conspiracy theory. You're telling me that all the pharmaceutical companies (or do you mean the doctors) in every country in the world, with different languages, customs, educational systems, religions, and companies that vary from small start-ups to mega-conglomerates, have somehow all gotten a secret memo instructing them not to propound dietary changes to protect their status and egos? Why are doctors so prominent on telling people to quit smoking? To lose weight? Why do they tell people to exercise? Wouldn't these things kill their profits also?
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:31 pm
Also, I would note for the record, that beef was one of the googleplex of ingredients my ex-husband claimed caused him physiological distress. I literally had to keep a spreadsheet. He also claimed exemption from changing diapers, washing dishes and mowing the lawn due to his various afflictions. Yet, somehow, downing a 6 (or 12) pack of beer was never a problem :x
That's what I found interesting in Michaela Peterson, that she found no problem with alcohol, but found problems in basically all other foods, condiments, etc.
BRUTE wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:35 pm
not to speak of 40 or 50 years (in Peterson's case) of very confidently being told this is just what it is, there is no cure, by the medical establishment.
doesn't even mention the fact that it can be completely brought under control with a simple diet change.
You can find a few people on youtube claiming ANYTHING, and do find it. Where is the proof? If no proof, where is the evidence? I am not sure what is the claim being made, but if it is that a 100% beef diet cures psoriasis, then why isn't the meat industry, which I believe is a trillion dollar market worldwide, getting behind it? You're telling me not a single doctor, in any country in the world, with a world population in the billions, wrote a paper on it? There are so many journals today that it is ridiculously easy to get published. I know someone who has never had a paper rejected.

And @jennypenny, you mention you eat beef AND greens. I would like to know any examples of anyone eating 100% beef on a long-term basis and not suffering ill health effects.

trfie
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:35 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by trfie » Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:34 pm

Campitor wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:08 am
I could care less about Peterson's diet or his hyperboles. I care if his message is wrong based on his arguments for whatever message he is promulgating at the time. I would hope that if he was talking about the dangers of alcohol on fetal brain development, that his arguments wouldn't be dismissed because he eats meat only or because HE believes he didn't sleep for 25 days. It's easy to dismiss a message's veracity because we dislike the messenger.
The point is, he is not the messenger. He comes up with the ideas himself. He collects all the data and does the analysis. So if he is able to jump into something in a month and start promulgating it, without data, then it makes sense to question his other proclamations. He himself, after embarking on his new diet, said in an interview that he does not know what to believe about anything anymore. And if the 100% beef diet only lasts a couple of months, then it was irresponsible for him to be proselytizing and getting a lot of other people to try something that does not work. Whenever I try something new, I get great results for a few months, regardless of what the change was. Change causes novelty, and when there is a new way of doing or looking at something, it can work really well. But it is more of a placebo. I would not start recommending any of my experiments if it doesn't work for more than a few months.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3805
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by BRUTE » Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:26 pm

trfie wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:25 pm
This is a conspiracy theory. You're telling me that all the pharmaceutical companies (or do you mean the doctors) in every country in the world, with different languages, customs, educational systems, religions, and companies that vary from small start-ups to mega-conglomerates, have somehow all gotten a secret memo instructing them not to propound dietary changes to protect their status and egos? Why are doctors so prominent on telling people to quit smoking? To lose weight? Why do they tell people to exercise? Wouldn't these things kill their profits also?
no, brute is not saying that at all. brute is saying that the majority of individual humans in this industry don't know what the fuck they're talking about, are actively spreading untruths (lies would imply they knew better), and are suppressing research counter to what they're saying.

diabetes is a solved problem. yet millions of humans die every year from it. no conspiracy necessary, just the failure of human egos en large to admit they are wrong.

User avatar
Bankai
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:28 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Bankai » Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:54 pm

There are conflicting incentives for both pharmaceutical companies and doctors.

On the one hand, helping a bit but not too much, so sick people keep coming back and paying for prescriptions. Ideally, for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, competition forces really bad firms/doctors out.

This is not unique to medicine. A new office created to solve a particular problem is strongly motivated to do enough to justify its existence, but under no circumstances should it actually solve the problem, as this would invalidate its raison d'être. Or planned obsolescence - if the fridge broke after 2 years, you'd likely buy from another company, but after 4 years you might even come back to the same manufacturer. After all, it was shiny and quiet.

In my limited experience, there are doctors who genuinely want to help. For some, it's the purpose of life. Majority of people going to medical schools do it for money/status though.

Also, coronary heart disease is a solved problem. Whole food, plant-based diet will keep cholesterol at around 150 or less and with cholesterol that low your chances of having a heart attack are practically zero. With steak only diet... oh well.

jennypenny
Posts: 6027
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by jennypenny » Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:23 pm

trfie wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:25 pm
And @jennypenny, you mention you eat beef AND greens. I would like to know any examples of anyone eating 100% beef on a long-term basis and not suffering ill health effects.
I don't really want to get into a debate over Peterson's diet, but I've heard him say on several occasions that he eats beef and greens. That's a modified carnivore diet, which is different than what someone like Dr. Shawn is doing.

I'm not sure why it bothers you so much that some people treat their autoimmune diseases with diet. Peterson gave traditional medicine every opportunity to help him and his daughter and it couldn't ... only then did he try different diets. It's not like he's telling people to eschew traditional medicine, just offering hope to those who haven't been helped or can't tolerate the meds. (The side effects of Humira are legion. You also can't take it if you have a history of lymphoma, and people with diseases like psoriasis are more prone to lymphoma. Immunosuppressants are risky.)

If you have severe autoimmune issues, you might not live long enough to worry about things like colon cancer anyway. These diseases aren't benign, whether medically or because of the increased rate of suicide in people who suffer from them. The risk of becoming addicted to pain meds is also very high.

Campitor
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:07 pm

What I find strange is that anyone would question or focus on someone's personal dietary choices, especially if those choices lead to improved health in a previously malfunctioning organ or biological process (skin, liver, enzymatic, etc.). We all know that certain foods have negative effects on certain portions of the population: peanuts, soy, wheat, shell fish, etc.

That someone has a severe reaction to certain foods shouldn't be surprising to anyone especially when you account for the chemical brew and genetic mutation that factory farming is famous for. Perhaps Peterson's genetic expression lends itself to getting hijacked by certain phytochemicals. Some people can die just by eating straweberries: https://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/an ... rawberries.

But if the only refutation of Peterson's arguments is his food preferences, I would say the person needs a strong dose of anti-fallacy therapy and an immersion or re-immersion in critical thinking exercises.

trfie
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:35 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by trfie » Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:16 pm

Bankai wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:54 pm
There are conflicting incentives for both pharmaceutical companies and doctors.

On the one hand, helping a bit but not too much, so sick people keep coming back and paying for prescriptions. Ideally, for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, competition forces really bad firms/doctors out.

This is not unique to medicine. A new office created to solve a particular problem is strongly motivated to do enough to justify its existence, but under no circumstances should it actually solve the problem, as this would invalidate its raison d'être. Or planned obsolescence - if the fridge broke after 2 years, you'd likely buy from another company, but after 4 years you might even come back to the same manufacturer. After all, it was shiny and quiet.

In my limited experience, there are doctors who genuinely want to help. For some, it's the purpose of life. Majority of people going to medical schools do it for money/status though.
The argument that there are negative incentives in medicine is silly. This is the case for ALL professions and ALL fields. Plumbers shouldn't do too good a job, nor car mechanics, nor anyone in the world. People writing books shouldn't give out all the answers. Maybe we shouldn't trust the ERE book? Think about whatever each of your own jobs are. Better not do too good a job, so that the the customer will have to come back.
Also, coronary heart disease is a solved problem. Whole food, plant-based diet will keep cholesterol at around 150 or less and with cholesterol that low your chances of having a heart attack are practically zero. With steak only diet... oh well.
I agree, but there were studies by Dr. Esselystyn at the cleveland clinic showing reversal of coronary artery disease with a modified plant-based diet. The cholesterol of <150 and the rarity of coronary artery disease was found out in a large study on the general population, I think one of the most famous studies done in medicine. That trial had nothing to do with a plant-based diet, but it turns out that a plant-based diet causes cholesterol to go below 150. One can go on Pubmed and find a plethora of studies on plant-based diets. I would like to know what the evidence is for other things being touted.
Campitor wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:07 pm
What I find strange is that anyone would question or focus on someone's personal dietary choices, especially if those choices lead to improved health in a previously malfunctioning organ or biological process (skin, liver, enzymatic, etc.). We all know that certain foods have negative effects on certain portions of the population: peanuts, soy, wheat, shell fish, etc.

That someone has a severe reaction to certain foods shouldn't be surprising to anyone especially when you account for the chemical brew and genetic mutation that factory farming is famous for. Perhaps Peterson's genetic expression lends itself to getting hijacked by certain phytochemicals. Some people can die just by eating straweberries: https://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/an ... rawberries.

But if the only refutation of Peterson's arguments is his food preferences, I would say the person needs a strong dose of anti-fallacy therapy and an immersion or re-immersion in critical thinking exercises.
As I said above, Peterson previously used extensive data to make conclusions, and he himself said recently in an interview that he did not know what to believe about anything, based on how he changed his mind about diet based on a single personal experience. Those were his words, not mine. So if he is now questioning his own conclusions and methods, why wouldn't you question his conclusions?

Pointing out allergies has nothing to do with anything. There is someone allergic to every substance, including water. Those persons do not live very long.

But Peterson was talking about developing reactions to things that he tolerated before, after his all-meat diet began (ie, apple cider). That has nothing to do with normal allergies.

We do not know if his choices lead to improved health after 1 month. Take low-carb diets as an example. A study came out recently looking at tens of thousands of people over decades and finding that those who adhered to a low-carb diet have a lower life expectancy. This article links to the study:
https://qz.com/quartzy/1374958/a-short- ... diets/amp/
jennypenny wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:23 pm

I don't really want to get into a debate over Peterson's diet, but I've heard him say on several occasions that he eats beef and greens. That's a modified carnivore diet, which is different than what someone like Dr. Shawn is doing.
He might have followed that diet before, but he recently said he is on a 100% beef diet.
I'm not sure why it bothers you so much that some people treat their autoimmune diseases with diet. Peterson gave traditional medicine every opportunity to help him and his daughter and it couldn't ... only then did he try different diets. It's not like he's telling people to eschew traditional medicine, just offering hope to those who haven't been helped or can't tolerate the meds. (The side effects of Humira are legion. You also can't take it if you have a history of lymphoma, and people with diseases like psoriasis are more prone to lymphoma. Immunosuppressants are risky.)

If you have severe autoimmune issues, you might not live long enough to worry about things like colon cancer anyway. These diseases aren't benign, whether medically or because of the increased rate of suicide in people who suffer from them. The risk of becoming addicted to pain meds is also very high.
I am not bothered by someone treating autoimmune disease with diet. I have a friend with autoimmune disease and he has tried everything, including diet. Because diet worked for someone, doesn't mean that it will work for someone else, and it doesn't even mean that it works at all.

As I said above, there are people touting every possible treatment for every possible condition. There are scores of youtube videos, articles on the internet, claims, etc. Obviously they are not all true. So again, if autoimmune illness is treatable with diet, where are the studies? Why can't anyone post any reputable links? One personal account for 1 month is not data.

Giving off false hope from noneffective therapies is not okay. I have seen people have bad outcomes from trying weird therapies that someone advised on the internet. If you had personal experiences, maybe you would feel similarly. I'm not saying that using diet to treat autoimmune disease doesn't work, but I would like to know that it is reputable before I start advising it to people, and I would like to know specifically what to advise, I can't tell someone to just change their diet without having specific recommendations.
BRUTE wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:26 pm
no, brute is not saying that at all. brute is saying that the majority of individual humans in this industry don't know what the fuck they're talking about, are actively spreading untruths (lies would imply they knew better), and are suppressing research counter to what they're saying.

diabetes is a solved problem. yet millions of humans die every year from it. no conspiracy necessary, just the failure of human egos en large to admit they are wrong.
What is the cure to diabetes? If it's to lose weight, exercise, well that is well known, and I do not see the medical community hiding that, or any ignorance of that. What I see is that many people know it too, but would rather take some pills than to make very difficult lifestyle changes, especially with all the stress today.
And that is not the case for type 1 diabetes. I know someone with it who is normal weight, exercises, but has to take insulin.

IlliniDave
Posts: 2273
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by IlliniDave » Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:38 pm

trfie wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:16 pm
I would like to know what the evidence is for other things being touted.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23 ... -fat-diets
https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5_R13Luit0

That should get you started. There's also interesting emerging evidence regarding low carb/ketogenic diets in the realm of cancer prevention and treatment that's easy to find through a simple youtube or google search.

Add-on edit: it is possible to achieve a completely plant-based low carb regimen. Virtually all diet protocols recommend maximizing achievement of nutritional targets via whole foods, though it's more challenging when highly/exclusively plant-based. So there's no inherent opposition to plant-based whole foods in these protocols.

One thing to consider is who it is that publishes nutritional guidelines (i.e. the food pyramid) in the US: the USDA (Department of Agriculture) which is not primarily a medical organization.
Last edited by IlliniDave on Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3805
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by BRUTE » Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:11 pm

trfie wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:16 pm
What is the cure to diabetes? If it's to lose weight, exercise, well that is well known, and I do not see the medical community hiding that, or any ignorance of that. What I see is that many people know it too, but would rather take some pills than to make very difficult lifestyle changes, especially with all the stress today.
And that is not the case for type 1 diabetes. I know someone with it who is normal weight, exercises, but has to take insulin.
brute is talking type 2 specifically. low-carb or keto is the solution. the problem is high blood sugar, so the answer is not to raise blood sugar. type 1 is obviously different (no insulin to begin with, so there will always be the need for injections), but even then it helps stabilize blood sugar levels so injections become more predictable and therefore less dangerous.

but "low carb" is considered a fad and dangerous to heart health, so the majority of the medical establishment recommends ineffective, less effective, or even counter-effective "solutions" so they can avoid the cognitive dissonance of "eating meat/fat is healthy" and "eating plants (high in carbohydrate) is bad".

edit:

to the extremely specific allergy point: the humans with those allergies probably don't care much that 99% of humanity don't suffer from the same conditions, as long as they themselves are cured/symptom free.

it is equally "not okay" to deny a minority from alleviation to a life destroying condition, simply because the majority of humans does not suffer from it.

Campitor
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:40 pm

if he is now questioning his own conclusions and methods, why wouldn't you question his conclusions
My comments should be taken in context. While it's perfectly fine to question his theories about food preferences and their potential effects on his long term health when discussing diet related topics, it's not okay to use his food preferences, and his stated reasons for choosing them, when judging the merits of his non-food related conclusions.

And in regards to his food preferences, he was suffering and saw his daughter's health improve with the carnivore diet. It wasn't such a wide leap in logic, especially since he suffered similar maladies that affected his daughter, to conclude that the diet may be beneficial in reducing his depression and psoriasis. And after eating nothing but beef and "greens" for months, I'm not surprised that he is craving other foods and wants to experiment with other dietary choices to see how they affect his body.

And just because he's an expert in one area, doesn't mean he's an expert in others. And just because he's clueless on the science of diet, doesn't mean he's a dummy in psychology and human motivation. I was just pointing out that the below quote is irrational when judging the merits of his arguments in his area of expertise. If Einstein was a carnivore fanatic or spoke erroneously about subjects outside of his area of expertise, would that have invalidated his expertise in physics? This is just bad thinking and should be avoided.
What is up with his all beef diet? For someone who is apparently data-driven, it makes me question some of his other work if he would jump into something like that without strong evidence.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3805
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by BRUTE » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:57 am

brute finds all this "not okay" talk highly problematic.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3805
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by BRUTE » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:59 am

Campitor wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:40 pm
If Einstein was a carnivore fanatic or spoke erroneously about subjects outside of his area of expertise, would that have invalidated his expertise in physics?
why the hypothetical? Einstein said lots of dumb things about socialism and capitalism, which he knew almost nothing about.

Campitor
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:34 am

BRUTE wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:57 am
brute finds all this "not okay" talk highly problematic.
I see where you're coming from. Typically I would agree with you. Again I have to say that my comments need to be taken in context. Refuting someone's arguments, theories, and facts should be based on facts and arguments that pertain to the matter at hand and not some irrelevant subject such as food choices.

Campitor
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:51 am

BRUTE wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:59 am
why the hypothetical? Einstein said lots of dumb things about socialism and capitalism, which he knew almost nothing about.
I didn't want to bother digging out concrete examples. Intelligent people are not immune to being wrong in other subjects outside their expertise. This doesn't make them wrong in regards to subjects within their expertise unless of course they are proven wrong. Debating Einstein on physics using his ideas on capitalism or socialism would be illogical and ignorant. To argue in this fashion is antithetical to critical thinking and rational debating. Dismissing relativity because of Einstein's hasty food choices is bad bad bad.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Sep 08, 2018 8:05 am

Campitor wrote:My comments should be taken in context. While it's perfectly fine to question his theories about food preferences and their potential effects on his long term health when discussing diet related topics, it's not okay to use his food preferences, and his stated reasons for choosing them, when judging the merits of his non-food related conclusions.
I don't care about his food choices. My level of exasperation with such matters is only due to frequently having to hostess large social gatherings where I have to simultaneously feed Vegans, Foodies, Sugar-Abstainers, Drinkers, Lactose-Intolerants and 5 year old children who only like noodles, while wishing to make some attempt at frugality.

However, I would note that his arguments in favor of his methods towards child development are not made in anything resembling an academic or scientific method. His writing and argument style most resembles that of the sort found in books of Collected Sermons that were often read by educated people in the 19th century. He only sounds original, or particularly wise, because maybe 30 people on the planet have bothered to read a 19th century book of Collected Sermons. "Observe the robin..."

Child Development is one of the few realms in which I actually have more Practical Experience than Book Learn'n, and I strongly disagree with Peterson on both counts. For instance, just yesterday I was working with a Master Kindergarten Educator and a group of 22 students, and observed how she dealt with two incidents of highly unsocial behavior; theft and pooping on the floor :lol: As I have stated previously, I believe that most Modern Master Kindergarten Teachers would agree with Dr. Peterson up to about an 80% level, past which he goes completely off-the-wall.

As is true in almost every other field, "we" actually do know more about Child Development than "we" knew in the age of Collected Sermons or when Skinner was performing his experiment on rats. Corporal punishment is not legal in my state, but I have worked with young children in districts encompassing every possible variation of parental education, affluence, culture, and in rural and urban settings. So, I have taught in a setting where when a teacher was just raising her voice a bit in frustration with the students, the principal walked in from the hallway, and put her arm around the teacher kindly, and inquired whether she needed to take a break. I have also taught in a setting where a student informed me that another teacher had picked up a student and thrown him with some force out of the room and into the hallway, and I had good reason to believe this report. I have also observed a brilliant teacher who was able through sheer talent and very hard work, to achieve almost the standards of civility in the first school, working in a district with a student population almost as under-privileged and lacking in the resources of the second. Therefore, I am absolutely confident in my assertion that a child attending the first school will have a better outcome than a child attending the second school, unless she experiences the great good luck of a series of gifted, practically philanthropic in dedication level, teachers some I have met.

IOW, there is no way in heck I would enroll my own child or grand-child in a school where Dr. Peterson was the principal.or heaven-forbid the kindergarten teacher, because IMO, his philosophy is based on the perspective of somebody who, by his own admission, is lacking in at least two of the core resources necessary for effective, empathetic management of young children, namely Extreme Patience and Great Good-Humor.

Campitor
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:06 am

@7WB

I didn't think you were dismissive of his arguments based on his food choices. But it's been clear that you find him annoying and your last post elucidates why; your annoyance has a rational foundation.
wrote: I don't care about his food choices. My level of exasperation with such matters is only due to frequently having to hostess large social gatherings where I have to simultaneously feed Vegans, Foodies, Sugar-Abstainers, Drinkers, Lactose-Intolerants and 5 year old children who only like noodles, while wishing to make some attempt at frugality.
I have Jewish, Muslim, Vegan, Carnivore, celiac/lactose intolerant friends. I incorporate menus items that I know they like and can provide the calories to satiate their hunger. But I also make clear that any drinks, outside of juice and water, is a BYOB affair. Same goes for any food choices that are not part of my menu. I respectfully tell them that I will cook whatever food they bring or they are free to cook it themselves as long as it doesn't harm the general dining experience - IOTW - no you can't grill pork on the same bbq that I'm cooking food for my jewish/muslim friends because that would ruin their dining experience.
However, I would note that his arguments in favor of his methods towards child development are not made in anything resembling an academic or scientific method. His writing and argument style most resembles that of the sort found in books of Collected Sermons that were often read by educated people in the 19th century. He only sounds original, or particularly wise, because maybe 30 people on the planet have bothered to read a 19th century book of Collected Sermons. "Observe the robin..."
I haven't read the 19th century book either. I've seen Peterson's lectures but none that discuss child rearing. I have his latest book in my reading queue but it's 10th in line. I have no means to base an opinion on his child rearing recommendations. You're hands on expertise does hold weight in my considerations regarding what is the best avenue for helping children overcome social, learning, and developmental hindrances. My only question is in regards to any negative impacts to the class as a whole when a teacher has to spend a significant amount of time on 1 student.
...his philosophy is based on the perspective of somebody who, by his own admission, is lacking in at least two of the core resources necessary for effective, empathetic management of young children, namely Extreme Patience and Great Good-Humor.
What do you think is the pareto distribution of extreme patience and good-humor in the teaching population, kindergarten or otherwise? What is the pareto distribution of teachers, with extreme patience and good-humor, that are exhausted of their patience and good-humor when dealing with challenging students? What is the pareto distribution of successful outcomes for students that have experienced a good natured/patient teacher? What is the pareto distribution of successful outcomes for students who haven't experienced a good-natured/patient teacher who is otherwise competent in teaching? I'm asking honestly. I'm not trying to strawman you. I honestly want to know what your observations as a teacher has been.

daylen
Posts: 844
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by daylen » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:09 am

I have been a high school teacher for a few weeks now, and I will say patience is absolutely necessary. I am trying to show immature humans how to do things 4+ mathematical wheaton levels below me.

Humor reminds them I am human.
Last edited by daylen on Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply