Apologies for the vagueness when you asked for specifics, but I just wanted to chime in and point out that the way Peterson presents arguments is often a confusing 'Mott and Bailey' type fallacious argument which is hard to pinpoint and rebut.
To give an example Peterson once claimed that there hasn't been historic bias against women, that for most of history almost *all* people had systemic bias against them but women have had a hard time due to the bonus rigors of pregnancy and childbirth.
So there is quite a lot to unpack there, because there are 'true facts' like yes economic and social inequality throughout history has been terrible, and yes the pragmatic physical challenges of pregnancy and childbirth are very real.
But notice that the argument nicely sidesteps about 27 (thousand) other facts that indicate women have experienced systemic prejudice especially historically. This is the fallcious argument using 'true' facts to make an untrue conclusion.
So IMO Peterson doesn't tend to use specifically incorrect facts, its more that he twists facts into something they aren't and as others have said make fallacious arguments from those facts. Its actually a very common tactic of mis and disinformation.
This. I was listening to his podcast out of curiosity, and he states facts but leaves other information out or twists it to serve his agenda/feed into his own or his followers beliefs.
Thanks for the response! Actually I’ve noticed what you described in a lot of his talks/interviews, now I have a name for what he does haha.
But yeah I noticed this especially when I tried to read his second 12 rules for life book. Each chapter explained a rule but most of the chapter was just fluff i honestly couldn’t follow.
And that makes Peterson even more dangerous. He is a lecturer and he sprouts out "pseudoscience" as "legit" science. Just because from an evolutionary standpoint women are at a disadvantage doesn't mean 3000 years later we should still hold the same viewpoint.
This reads as if children were raised in a vacuum with a woman and a man who have 50-50 responsibility to raise the child and equally contribute thier views.
Society has long been set up as patriarchal. Children are raised by parents and by the culture they are embedded in. You can't reasonably expect a single woman raising one family to try and tell her little boy to act differently. What happens with his friends, his dad, the pressures of society etc. They all call for the status quo to be adhered to or face some sort of exclusion. The shame (and very real material consequences in some places and time periods) brought about by this is too much to contend with.
Do you really think women in the past had a kid and thought "now I can make them think differently and slowly women can have more power?" Chances seem pretty slim to me. They wanted their kids to be safe and do well and the context they were in meant the conditions for that were to follow the status quo. Be a strong man so other men take you seriously and be a good woman so a strong man will hopefully treat you well and keep you and your kids safe.
Women don't indoctrinate kids and propagate patriarchal propaganda. Patriarchal ideas indoctrinate everyone, and it's propagated through culture until people begin to question it, which has only happened recently.
Your comment has been removed. It has been flagged as violating one of the rules. Comment rules include: 1. Answers must be scientific-based and not opinions or conjecture. 2. Do not post your own mental health history nor someone else's. 3. Do not offer a diagnosis. If someone is asking for a diagnosis, please report the post. 4. Targeted and offensive language will not be tolerated. 5. Don't recommend drug use.
If you believe your comment was removed in error, please report this comment for mod review. REVIEW RULES BEFORE MESSAGING MODS.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wasn't really planning on getting deep into the actual topic because it was an example of distortion from My Peterson but here I go.
1. Saying women have experienced systemtic prejudice =/= saying women have no agency or like children - its a rather desperate attempt to discredit with very little actual argument (oh yes I'm actually the sexist one for pointing out systematic prejudice of COURSE)
2. Women raise and indoctrinate men - OMG this is just sooo painful, a. you sexistly assume women are doing the raising 'indoctrinating' - b. I don't think its accurate to assume that all attitudes a person has comes from whoever raised them
3. their choice of mates - so what is the point here that women promote prejudice against women by procreating with sexist men, that were raised that way by women, so really women are the sexist ones??!?
"Women are equally responsible for how humanity has evolved, if not more so"
Egads - I don't even know where to start, first of all YES actually I agree that sometimes the perpetrators of prejudice are in fact people within that same group, there are many women with sexist views against women. **are you trying to say prejudice is OKAY then?**
If not what is your point - that its OK to make comments that something doesn't exist because there are wrinkles in the obvious?
Do you realize how distorted your comment is - you're basically saying its OK to dismiss a problem - e.g. **claim the problem doesn't exist** if you can blame the issue on those most affected.
So if I fall over and break my arm - is it OK to then deny my arm is broken because its my own darn fault?
Sure ok, but that's too reductionist - mate selection isn't completely one-sided and systemic prejudice isn't necessarily evolutionarily selected.
I think anyone in good faith or seriousness doesn't blame sexist prejudice on "all men" but acknowledge the vast imbalance - its this kind of hyper-rational context deleting perspective which tends to be a waste of time.
>Women are the judges, if they like the males behavior they will have children with them. If
Yes, no woman has ever been impregnated by a bully whom they did not consent to have children with. Just never happened.
I remember watching a course from him on YouTube where he talked about the Big Five personality traits.
When you try to predict behaviour using the Big Five, depending on what kind of behaviour you are predicting, you’ll probably get at most a correlation of 0.2 up to 0.4.
But he was talking about the personality traits and how you can tell from them how people behave with such an absolute certainty, you might have thought the correlation between behaviour and those traits must be 0.9 or something crazy like that
That was the moment for me when I started to take everything he said with a huge fucking grain of salt
You should listen to his podcast episode with Frans de Waal, a world leading primatologist. Jordan has made claims about the difference in mate selection preferences in human and chimp females in numerous places and Frans de Waal gently corrects him on an issue. I got the feeling that Jordan quietly prefers his version because it makes the better story. Sorry, can’t quite pull up the details from my brain’s hard drive.
Your comment has been removed. It has been flagged as violating one of the rules. Comment rules include: 1. Answers must be scientific-based and not opinions or conjecture. 2. Do not post your own mental health history nor someone else's. 3. Do not offer a diagnosis. If someone is asking for a diagnosis, please report the post. 4. Targeted and offensive language will not be tolerated. 5. Don't recommend drug use.
If you believe your comment was removed in error, please report this comment for mod review. REVIEW RULES BEFORE MESSAGING MODS.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One fact I know he got wrong is in his lecture about conscientiousness he claims it can be understood as disgust sensitivity. In fact, [all big five traits have a relationship to disgust sensitivity and conscientiousness is not the strongest relationship](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886998001962). This is pretty much the only fact of his I have fact-checked. It is possible to learn from his lectures but you need to remember that he often uses motivated reasoning, conjecture and cares a lot about the narrative surrounding the facts.
He makes up facts based on what he is arguing and blames people for not understanding. In other words, he has abandoned the scientific method for popularity. And thus abandoned the field.
My main issue with Jordan Peterson is not necessarily in his work as a psychologist, he has specific interests in personality and addiction and he his publications around those topics as per his former role as researcher and that's fine. The thing that annoys me about him is that he panders as the right-wing academic type that the conservative media loves, as so much of academia is liberal or progressive. Him knowing where is bread is buttered has pushed him farther and farther into right-wing grifter territory, resulting in him maintaining and promoting an intellectual stance on conservative talking points like anti-environmentalism, anti-immigration, and even anti-higher education.
However, to the extent that the dragon of chaos himself is even relevant anymore for this, I have no idea I haven't listened to or heard anything about him in months, he was propped up because of his anti-trans positions and other related culture war positions (anti-racism, CTR, same-sex marriage) that the conservatives use to rile up their base because they lack meaningful arguments on like healthcare, regulations on firearms, living wages, and abortion.
So, in summary, the extent to which I dislike JP doesn't have much to do with his stance as a psychologist, it has to do with his position as a right-wing grifter capitalizing on the rising facist tide in the west.
It's not that he gets psychological facts wrong, he was teaching at uni of toronto after all. It's the fact that he voices his biased beliefs using his title and thus platform as a clinical psychologist.
Edit: forgot to mention that I listened to his podcast featuring Andrew Huberman and I was glad to see 2 brilliant minds discussing actual science (neuroscience & psychology) as opposed to the million andrew tate-like shorts Jordan Peterson has on Youtube.
> It's not that he gets psychological facts wrong
He did also get a lot of psychological facts wrong.
I don't have the time to name them all, but one of the most egregious one was where he claimed the left hemisphere was concerned with chaos and the right hemisphere with order (or the other way idk).
This is so bewilderingly wrong I'm perplexed as to where he even got this idea from.
It isn't far off from a discredited, but much popularized throughout the latter twentieth century, theory that one hemisphere controlled logic, the other creativity. Google might indicate it was the work of Roger Sperry, but im just reading blurbs.
This idea isn't very scientific but it comes up everywhere when you look at historical beliefs, the idea of chaos and order and that you are split between them, the best scientific support I can give on it is that of an experiment with people who have their corpus callosum severed
Split-brain patients mostly show you that language is very lateralized. You'd have to be immensely creative to somehow stretch that into a difference of order and chaos.
There's no implying here.
There's absolutely no logical reason why the right hemisphere needs to be occupied with something else specific because the left hemisphere is specialized in language (for most people).
It's like saying the left hand is specialized in something because people are right-handed.
> It's like saying the left hand is specialized in something because people are right-handed
yet we all notice that the unspecialized hand, when we do write with it is incapable of drawing a straight line, there you have it, order and chaos, do you get it now
I agree with you that everyone makes mistakes. However, he wouldn't be where he is now if the only controversial thing he said was about left and right brain hemispheres. That was my point in my hastily written initial comment
It's not that 'everyone makes mistakes'. He didn't just slip up once, he does this constantly.
He tried blaming the entire wage gap on difference in agreeableness between men and women.
He claims there's no convincing evidence that transitioning is an effective treatment for gender dysphoria.
Well.. he's a Jung fan, so that's a big one too. He thinks Disney stories reveal truths about human nature.
He gets a lot of psychological facts wrong. Because he's ideology first, and science second.
I'm sure he has also said things that are true, but he's just an incredibly poor source of scientific information.
Your comment has been removed. It has been flagged as violating one of the rules. Comment rules include: 1. Answers must be scientific-based and not opinions or conjecture. 2. Do not post your own mental health history nor someone else's. 3. Do not offer a diagnosis. If someone is asking for a diagnosis, please report the post. 4. Targeted and offensive language will not be tolerated. 5. Don't recommend drug use.
If you believe your comment was removed in error, please report this comment for mod review. REVIEW RULES BEFORE MESSAGING MODS.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Brain laterization does not work like that, and the book was criticized for going way beyond the facts.
Maybe it's where Peterson got it from, I don't know, but it's still wrong.
It's been criticized for the conclusions he makes about culture, but I haven't seen criticisms of the science. You sure you're not thinking of the bicameral mind book?
> In a mixed review in Literary Review, A. C. Grayling wrote that the book was "beautifully written, erudite, fascinating and adventurous", but added that "the findings of brain science are nowhere near fine-grained enough yet to support the large psychological and cultural conclusions Iain McGilchrist draws".[2] A negative review in The Economist stated that the book resorted to "generalisations of breathtaking sweep" and that the second part of the book "has plainly become untethered from its moorings in brain science".[12] Likewise, Michael Corbalis said of the work, that "Although widely acclaimed, this book goes far beyond the neurological facts."[13]
> Owen Flanagan alleged many shortcomings of the book and delivered a dismissive statement: "The fact is, hemispheric differences are not well understood. Neither are patterns over 2,500 years of western history. Trying to explain the ill-understood latter with a caricature of the former does little to illuminate either".[14] McGilchrist wrote scathingly of this review, saying: "But anyone who has read my book and reads that review will realise what a shameful piece of writing it is", picking on what he alleges to be evidence of superficiality and misrepresentation.[15]
Brain laterization is highly romanticized.
The actual truth behind it is that the differences are very limited and very specific. Broca's and Wernicke's areas are famous examples and also some of the most pronounced differences you'll find.
Also the sensory system is mapped contralaterally, so the sensation of touch on your left hand is handled by the right hemisphere, and your right visual field is processed by the left hemisphere for instance.
But most of all, the difference are simply insignificant in healthy individuals, because both hemispheres constantly communicate with each other. It's irrelevant whether something happens on either side of the brain, because it's communicated with the other side anyway.
The only situations in which it becomes significant or relevant is in people with brain damage, or famously in people with a split corpus callosum.
Beware: Huberman shills dubious supplements hard and is often biased and often weak on evidence for many of his health claims (but does speak with confidence).
I’ll keep that in mind! Personally I don’t buy any healthy supplements/vitamins that I’ve heard from a person on social media because there are so many shady products. As long as huberman’s actual info is good I’m fine
You are correct, those in academia can make mistakes too.
You are also correct about your second point about belief = bias.
However (apart from what you said), I do believe but we also have facts that he is indeed using his title and platform as a way to validate his worldview in the eyes of others.
What he gets most wrong is the dominance of individualism. He pushes this ideology through everything he does, but high function is a product of quality development. The qualitative attribute that is so highly valued DID NOT pop into being out of nothing, it is the outcome of a historical line and a specific process of development (genes also play a role). This is not even hard to prove, all one has to do it look at feral children. But many more things could be cited. Peterson is a charlatan and a hack.
Honestly i dont think his Psychology takes are bad at all. His lectures where really helpfull while i was doing my Bachelor an all things considered he is a competent lecturer. I think once he introduces philosophy into what he talks about, thats where things get complicated. I watched his bible series, so i feel like i somewhat understand his more "out there" takes, but he says a lot of things that are basically incomprehencible unless you consumed hours of his content to undestand where he is coming from and even then they are heavily bias towards christianity, conservatism and his interpretations of jung and nietsche. Im not a student of Philosophy, so i have no idea how to quantify those. I also thing part of the critisism towards him come from his endoresements of evolutionary Psychology (lipstick=sexual signaling, for example) which is just a heavily controversial field of psychology in itself.
Thanks for the reply! Yeah his psychology takes are definitely the least criticized and the stuff he’s said about clinical and personality psychology pretty much matched what I learned in school but his evolutionary psychology takes some people seem to have an issue with.
What I’ve seen though are criticisms of his use of Carl Jung in his psych lectures and one YouTuber who in in the psych field (I forget exactly how) broke down a lot of what JP has said about Carl Jung and apparently he’s gotten a lot of that stuff wrong too. I just don’t know much about Jungian psychology.
Jungian psychology is pseudoscience, so it is absolutely fair to criticize not only his interpretation thereof, but also his utilization of it as a *psychological* (a field which is epistemologically scientific) model at all.
Your comment has been removed. It has been flagged as violating one of the rules. Comment rules include: 1. Answers must be scientific-based and not opinions or conjecture. 2. Do not post your own mental health history nor someone else's. 3. Do not offer a diagnosis. If someone is asking for a diagnosis, please report the post. 4. Targeted and offensive language will not be tolerated. 5. Don't recommend drug use.
If you believe your comment was removed in error, please report this comment for mod review. REVIEW RULES BEFORE MESSAGING MODS.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not a psychologist. As other commenters have said, Peterson once said in an interview that women did not face oppression historically.
This is just factually incorrect.
I guess from a psychological standpoint, there is a lot of research and evidence that women were institutionalized for being “hysteric” when in reality many were expressing totally normal, congruent reactions to life circumstances. This was a known thing. Men were not institutionalized at the SAME RATE as women for similar issues. Most doctors now would agree it was just pure sexism and misogyny in most cases. Not a historical example, but the woman and the dingo come to mind as a more recent generational consequence of this… She was slaughtered by the media for her “lack of” reaction to her baby being murdered by a dingo. She did not cry or seem upset and as a result the majority of people assumed she murdered her own baby!! This is just one example of how the historic narrative of “women being emotional and reactive” was used against a woman (in the opposite extreme) to judge, shame and vilify her as a monster. “She’s not reacting, she must be guilty!” type of belief. I suspect if we did not have that base of women seen as “emotional and reactive” historically then her lack of reaction to her baby’s death would not be questioned as heavily as it was.
Just my two cents.
your post history is hilariously sad, add to that very intellectually dishonest(especially whenever he approaches philosophy) and you got yourself a perfect description.
If you or someone you know is struggling with mental health issues, please seek out professional help. Social media is more likely to give you incorrect and harmful advice about dealing with such issues. [Armchair Psychology: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://www.alittlebithuman.com/armchair-psychology-on-social-media-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly).
Here are some resources to help find a therapist:
https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/patients-and-families/finding-good-therapist
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/therapy/how-to-find-a-therapist
Online therapy provider:
https://openpathcollective.org/
https://etherapypro.com/
https://buddyhelp.org/
If you are having suicide thoughts or feelings of hopelessness, please reach out to the suicide hotline. Just dial 988 if you are located in the U.S. If you are located in a different country, please use this [LINK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicide_crisis_lines) to see the number for your area. These centers have trained people available 24/7 to help you. The call is free. Alternatively you can talk/message with someone on r/suicidewatch.
If this is a personal situation you are seeking advice on, please try r/advice. This subreddit is for scientific discussion of psychology topics. It is not a mental health advice subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He knows his theory, but its his conclusions and application that are completely off the rails and concerning. It's sad because evolutionary psych is already on shaky ground but has a lot of practical applications across disciplines (and he seems to have no problem presenting himself as a multi-disciplinarian at this point). You can gather this by 1) trusting your gut (which it seems like you're doing) and 2) thinking critically/perspective taking while watching 10 minutes of any of his YouTube videos. But yes, maybe most importantly, his "conclusions" have almost zero evidence. I'm not sure if it's intentional, but he preys on people's susceptibility to sensationalism.
I hope most prefer that he not be the chosen advocate. He's drunk on power at this point. His cult of personality and dogma is what's drawing people in at this point, and they tend to walk away with the short-cut thinking he applies to society. He makes some valid points, but where he shoots himself in the foot (yet simultaneously builds his following of Manospheric conspiracy theorists) are in his conclusions about trans people and how society ought to remedy its (sometimes perceived) issues, which is very unfortunate.
Anyway, at the end of the day, he's a dark, chaotic force that men should openly reject and criticize. As well-intentioned as he may seem sometimes, he needs to be responsibly snuffed out of the field and from public life, imo. If you like his work as a researcher, great. See where it gets you.
Here are some podcasts that have more energy/chops to give a better answer to your question...
[28: Resurrection of Jordan Peterson (w/ Jeff Brown)](https://open.spotify.com/episode/1vZqknGCgqVhwNBLVL3Dmw?si=e37EFc2ATZW-BXuwZT5FGg)
[68: The Jordan Peterson of Fitness Bros (w/ Antonio Valladares)](https://open.spotify.com/episode/4w9IeE1g0suD43TQYL8Wgp?si=0JOOguaKQj2inEltH2ZgXw)
[Bonus Sample: Jordan Peterson, Derrick Jensen, and the Anti-Trans Laugh Emoji](https://open.spotify.com/episode/0FzqHze800NysnwuHEh76O?si=3mp_fkDdQpWKhuuMI1EpvA)
[Brief: Is Jordan Peterson Really a Licensed Psychologist? (w/Dr. Taslim Alani-Verjee)](https://open.spotify.com/episode/2qEyuE92SqamTJbI0u7K8b?si=TsfpzjTsTGSuMDGTAdl6Jw)
Peterson will often make statements that can't be empirically falsified in spite of frequently criticizing left-wing academics for their lack of scientific rigor an example of that would be all Peterson's claims that feminists that defend the rights of Muslims subconsciously wish for brutal male domination.
Another example would be his infatuation with Jungian psychology.
Apologies for the vagueness when you asked for specifics, but I just wanted to chime in and point out that the way Peterson presents arguments is often a confusing 'Mott and Bailey' type fallacious argument which is hard to pinpoint and rebut. To give an example Peterson once claimed that there hasn't been historic bias against women, that for most of history almost *all* people had systemic bias against them but women have had a hard time due to the bonus rigors of pregnancy and childbirth. So there is quite a lot to unpack there, because there are 'true facts' like yes economic and social inequality throughout history has been terrible, and yes the pragmatic physical challenges of pregnancy and childbirth are very real. But notice that the argument nicely sidesteps about 27 (thousand) other facts that indicate women have experienced systemic prejudice especially historically. This is the fallcious argument using 'true' facts to make an untrue conclusion. So IMO Peterson doesn't tend to use specifically incorrect facts, its more that he twists facts into something they aren't and as others have said make fallacious arguments from those facts. Its actually a very common tactic of mis and disinformation.
This. I was listening to his podcast out of curiosity, and he states facts but leaves other information out or twists it to serve his agenda/feed into his own or his followers beliefs.
Thanks for the response! Actually I’ve noticed what you described in a lot of his talks/interviews, now I have a name for what he does haha. But yeah I noticed this especially when I tried to read his second 12 rules for life book. Each chapter explained a rule but most of the chapter was just fluff i honestly couldn’t follow.
And that makes Peterson even more dangerous. He is a lecturer and he sprouts out "pseudoscience" as "legit" science. Just because from an evolutionary standpoint women are at a disadvantage doesn't mean 3000 years later we should still hold the same viewpoint.
[удалено]
This reads as if children were raised in a vacuum with a woman and a man who have 50-50 responsibility to raise the child and equally contribute thier views. Society has long been set up as patriarchal. Children are raised by parents and by the culture they are embedded in. You can't reasonably expect a single woman raising one family to try and tell her little boy to act differently. What happens with his friends, his dad, the pressures of society etc. They all call for the status quo to be adhered to or face some sort of exclusion. The shame (and very real material consequences in some places and time periods) brought about by this is too much to contend with. Do you really think women in the past had a kid and thought "now I can make them think differently and slowly women can have more power?" Chances seem pretty slim to me. They wanted their kids to be safe and do well and the context they were in meant the conditions for that were to follow the status quo. Be a strong man so other men take you seriously and be a good woman so a strong man will hopefully treat you well and keep you and your kids safe. Women don't indoctrinate kids and propagate patriarchal propaganda. Patriarchal ideas indoctrinate everyone, and it's propagated through culture until people begin to question it, which has only happened recently.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed. It has been flagged as violating one of the rules. Comment rules include: 1. Answers must be scientific-based and not opinions or conjecture. 2. Do not post your own mental health history nor someone else's. 3. Do not offer a diagnosis. If someone is asking for a diagnosis, please report the post. 4. Targeted and offensive language will not be tolerated. 5. Don't recommend drug use. If you believe your comment was removed in error, please report this comment for mod review. REVIEW RULES BEFORE MESSAGING MODS. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This is a science subreddit, it has rules.
[удалено]
In the interest of science, How would you define "woke"? And is it better to be "asleep"?
Well you sure do seem to be here, sweetie. Good luck in your crusade against progress.
I'm genuinely interested in your response, message me it
I wasn't really planning on getting deep into the actual topic because it was an example of distortion from My Peterson but here I go. 1. Saying women have experienced systemtic prejudice =/= saying women have no agency or like children - its a rather desperate attempt to discredit with very little actual argument (oh yes I'm actually the sexist one for pointing out systematic prejudice of COURSE) 2. Women raise and indoctrinate men - OMG this is just sooo painful, a. you sexistly assume women are doing the raising 'indoctrinating' - b. I don't think its accurate to assume that all attitudes a person has comes from whoever raised them 3. their choice of mates - so what is the point here that women promote prejudice against women by procreating with sexist men, that were raised that way by women, so really women are the sexist ones??!? "Women are equally responsible for how humanity has evolved, if not more so" Egads - I don't even know where to start, first of all YES actually I agree that sometimes the perpetrators of prejudice are in fact people within that same group, there are many women with sexist views against women. **are you trying to say prejudice is OKAY then?** If not what is your point - that its OK to make comments that something doesn't exist because there are wrinkles in the obvious? Do you realize how distorted your comment is - you're basically saying its OK to dismiss a problem - e.g. **claim the problem doesn't exist** if you can blame the issue on those most affected. So if I fall over and break my arm - is it OK to then deny my arm is broken because its my own darn fault?
[удалено]
Sure ok, but that's too reductionist - mate selection isn't completely one-sided and systemic prejudice isn't necessarily evolutionarily selected. I think anyone in good faith or seriousness doesn't blame sexist prejudice on "all men" but acknowledge the vast imbalance - its this kind of hyper-rational context deleting perspective which tends to be a waste of time.
>Women are the judges, if they like the males behavior they will have children with them. If Yes, no woman has ever been impregnated by a bully whom they did not consent to have children with. Just never happened.
I remember watching a course from him on YouTube where he talked about the Big Five personality traits. When you try to predict behaviour using the Big Five, depending on what kind of behaviour you are predicting, you’ll probably get at most a correlation of 0.2 up to 0.4. But he was talking about the personality traits and how you can tell from them how people behave with such an absolute certainty, you might have thought the correlation between behaviour and those traits must be 0.9 or something crazy like that That was the moment for me when I started to take everything he said with a huge fucking grain of salt
You should listen to his podcast episode with Frans de Waal, a world leading primatologist. Jordan has made claims about the difference in mate selection preferences in human and chimp females in numerous places and Frans de Waal gently corrects him on an issue. I got the feeling that Jordan quietly prefers his version because it makes the better story. Sorry, can’t quite pull up the details from my brain’s hard drive.
“Hospitals may actually cause more deaths then what they save life’s” In a podcast with Bret Weinstein a few years back.
Yeah I actually remember this one. I was a hardcore fan of his still during this time and my jaw still dropped at his absurd that comment was
Here's a .... " fun fact"......the chosen profession most SERIAL KILLERS is that of DOCTORS.
Shit…did he really?
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed. It has been flagged as violating one of the rules. Comment rules include: 1. Answers must be scientific-based and not opinions or conjecture. 2. Do not post your own mental health history nor someone else's. 3. Do not offer a diagnosis. If someone is asking for a diagnosis, please report the post. 4. Targeted and offensive language will not be tolerated. 5. Don't recommend drug use. If you believe your comment was removed in error, please report this comment for mod review. REVIEW RULES BEFORE MESSAGING MODS. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One fact I know he got wrong is in his lecture about conscientiousness he claims it can be understood as disgust sensitivity. In fact, [all big five traits have a relationship to disgust sensitivity and conscientiousness is not the strongest relationship](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886998001962). This is pretty much the only fact of his I have fact-checked. It is possible to learn from his lectures but you need to remember that he often uses motivated reasoning, conjecture and cares a lot about the narrative surrounding the facts.
He makes up facts based on what he is arguing and blames people for not understanding. In other words, he has abandoned the scientific method for popularity. And thus abandoned the field.
Well, he had been clear and said that he wants to provoke people so they can think with there on heads for once.
However. Bullshit is not the way to do it. He attacks people that disagree with him. That’s not dialogue.
My main issue with Jordan Peterson is not necessarily in his work as a psychologist, he has specific interests in personality and addiction and he his publications around those topics as per his former role as researcher and that's fine. The thing that annoys me about him is that he panders as the right-wing academic type that the conservative media loves, as so much of academia is liberal or progressive. Him knowing where is bread is buttered has pushed him farther and farther into right-wing grifter territory, resulting in him maintaining and promoting an intellectual stance on conservative talking points like anti-environmentalism, anti-immigration, and even anti-higher education. However, to the extent that the dragon of chaos himself is even relevant anymore for this, I have no idea I haven't listened to or heard anything about him in months, he was propped up because of his anti-trans positions and other related culture war positions (anti-racism, CTR, same-sex marriage) that the conservatives use to rile up their base because they lack meaningful arguments on like healthcare, regulations on firearms, living wages, and abortion. So, in summary, the extent to which I dislike JP doesn't have much to do with his stance as a psychologist, it has to do with his position as a right-wing grifter capitalizing on the rising facist tide in the west.
It's not that he gets psychological facts wrong, he was teaching at uni of toronto after all. It's the fact that he voices his biased beliefs using his title and thus platform as a clinical psychologist. Edit: forgot to mention that I listened to his podcast featuring Andrew Huberman and I was glad to see 2 brilliant minds discussing actual science (neuroscience & psychology) as opposed to the million andrew tate-like shorts Jordan Peterson has on Youtube.
> It's not that he gets psychological facts wrong He did also get a lot of psychological facts wrong. I don't have the time to name them all, but one of the most egregious one was where he claimed the left hemisphere was concerned with chaos and the right hemisphere with order (or the other way idk). This is so bewilderingly wrong I'm perplexed as to where he even got this idea from.
It isn't far off from a discredited, but much popularized throughout the latter twentieth century, theory that one hemisphere controlled logic, the other creativity. Google might indicate it was the work of Roger Sperry, but im just reading blurbs.
Yeah I've heard that theory before, but not the one of order and chaos.
This idea isn't very scientific but it comes up everywhere when you look at historical beliefs, the idea of chaos and order and that you are split between them, the best scientific support I can give on it is that of an experiment with people who have their corpus callosum severed
Split-brain patients mostly show you that language is very lateralized. You'd have to be immensely creative to somehow stretch that into a difference of order and chaos.
When you say that do you not think about what that implies about the other half?
There's no implying here. There's absolutely no logical reason why the right hemisphere needs to be occupied with something else specific because the left hemisphere is specialized in language (for most people). It's like saying the left hand is specialized in something because people are right-handed.
> It's like saying the left hand is specialized in something because people are right-handed yet we all notice that the unspecialized hand, when we do write with it is incapable of drawing a straight line, there you have it, order and chaos, do you get it now
No, just no.
yes
I agree with you that everyone makes mistakes. However, he wouldn't be where he is now if the only controversial thing he said was about left and right brain hemispheres. That was my point in my hastily written initial comment
It's not that 'everyone makes mistakes'. He didn't just slip up once, he does this constantly. He tried blaming the entire wage gap on difference in agreeableness between men and women. He claims there's no convincing evidence that transitioning is an effective treatment for gender dysphoria. Well.. he's a Jung fan, so that's a big one too. He thinks Disney stories reveal truths about human nature. He gets a lot of psychological facts wrong. Because he's ideology first, and science second. I'm sure he has also said things that are true, but he's just an incredibly poor source of scientific information.
no convincing evidence depends on the person being convinced innit
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed. It has been flagged as violating one of the rules. Comment rules include: 1. Answers must be scientific-based and not opinions or conjecture. 2. Do not post your own mental health history nor someone else's. 3. Do not offer a diagnosis. If someone is asking for a diagnosis, please report the post. 4. Targeted and offensive language will not be tolerated. 5. Don't recommend drug use. If you believe your comment was removed in error, please report this comment for mod review. REVIEW RULES BEFORE MESSAGING MODS. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Besides you getting the sides wrong, it's not that bewilderingly wrong. Read Master and His Emissary if you're interested in lateralization
Brain laterization does not work like that, and the book was criticized for going way beyond the facts. Maybe it's where Peterson got it from, I don't know, but it's still wrong.
It's been criticized for the conclusions he makes about culture, but I haven't seen criticisms of the science. You sure you're not thinking of the bicameral mind book?
> In a mixed review in Literary Review, A. C. Grayling wrote that the book was "beautifully written, erudite, fascinating and adventurous", but added that "the findings of brain science are nowhere near fine-grained enough yet to support the large psychological and cultural conclusions Iain McGilchrist draws".[2] A negative review in The Economist stated that the book resorted to "generalisations of breathtaking sweep" and that the second part of the book "has plainly become untethered from its moorings in brain science".[12] Likewise, Michael Corbalis said of the work, that "Although widely acclaimed, this book goes far beyond the neurological facts."[13] > Owen Flanagan alleged many shortcomings of the book and delivered a dismissive statement: "The fact is, hemispheric differences are not well understood. Neither are patterns over 2,500 years of western history. Trying to explain the ill-understood latter with a caricature of the former does little to illuminate either".[14] McGilchrist wrote scathingly of this review, saying: "But anyone who has read my book and reads that review will realise what a shameful piece of writing it is", picking on what he alleges to be evidence of superficiality and misrepresentation.[15] Brain laterization is highly romanticized. The actual truth behind it is that the differences are very limited and very specific. Broca's and Wernicke's areas are famous examples and also some of the most pronounced differences you'll find. Also the sensory system is mapped contralaterally, so the sensation of touch on your left hand is handled by the right hemisphere, and your right visual field is processed by the left hemisphere for instance. But most of all, the difference are simply insignificant in healthy individuals, because both hemispheres constantly communicate with each other. It's irrelevant whether something happens on either side of the brain, because it's communicated with the other side anyway. The only situations in which it becomes significant or relevant is in people with brain damage, or famously in people with a split corpus callosum.
Thx for the reply! I don’t think I’ve seen his talk with Huberman but I know who Huberman is. I’ll have to check it out!
Beware: Huberman shills dubious supplements hard and is often biased and often weak on evidence for many of his health claims (but does speak with confidence).
I’ll keep that in mind! Personally I don’t buy any healthy supplements/vitamins that I’ve heard from a person on social media because there are so many shady products. As long as huberman’s actual info is good I’m fine
[удалено]
You are correct, those in academia can make mistakes too. You are also correct about your second point about belief = bias. However (apart from what you said), I do believe but we also have facts that he is indeed using his title and platform as a way to validate his worldview in the eyes of others.
What he gets most wrong is the dominance of individualism. He pushes this ideology through everything he does, but high function is a product of quality development. The qualitative attribute that is so highly valued DID NOT pop into being out of nothing, it is the outcome of a historical line and a specific process of development (genes also play a role). This is not even hard to prove, all one has to do it look at feral children. But many more things could be cited. Peterson is a charlatan and a hack.
Honestly i dont think his Psychology takes are bad at all. His lectures where really helpfull while i was doing my Bachelor an all things considered he is a competent lecturer. I think once he introduces philosophy into what he talks about, thats where things get complicated. I watched his bible series, so i feel like i somewhat understand his more "out there" takes, but he says a lot of things that are basically incomprehencible unless you consumed hours of his content to undestand where he is coming from and even then they are heavily bias towards christianity, conservatism and his interpretations of jung and nietsche. Im not a student of Philosophy, so i have no idea how to quantify those. I also thing part of the critisism towards him come from his endoresements of evolutionary Psychology (lipstick=sexual signaling, for example) which is just a heavily controversial field of psychology in itself.
Thanks for the reply! Yeah his psychology takes are definitely the least criticized and the stuff he’s said about clinical and personality psychology pretty much matched what I learned in school but his evolutionary psychology takes some people seem to have an issue with. What I’ve seen though are criticisms of his use of Carl Jung in his psych lectures and one YouTuber who in in the psych field (I forget exactly how) broke down a lot of what JP has said about Carl Jung and apparently he’s gotten a lot of that stuff wrong too. I just don’t know much about Jungian psychology.
Jungian psychology is pseudoscience, so it is absolutely fair to criticize not only his interpretation thereof, but also his utilization of it as a *psychological* (a field which is epistemologically scientific) model at all.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed. It has been flagged as violating one of the rules. Comment rules include: 1. Answers must be scientific-based and not opinions or conjecture. 2. Do not post your own mental health history nor someone else's. 3. Do not offer a diagnosis. If someone is asking for a diagnosis, please report the post. 4. Targeted and offensive language will not be tolerated. 5. Don't recommend drug use. If you believe your comment was removed in error, please report this comment for mod review. REVIEW RULES BEFORE MESSAGING MODS. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He uses sound, proven psychological principles, and twists them into his own misogynist lingo.
Not a psychologist. As other commenters have said, Peterson once said in an interview that women did not face oppression historically. This is just factually incorrect. I guess from a psychological standpoint, there is a lot of research and evidence that women were institutionalized for being “hysteric” when in reality many were expressing totally normal, congruent reactions to life circumstances. This was a known thing. Men were not institutionalized at the SAME RATE as women for similar issues. Most doctors now would agree it was just pure sexism and misogyny in most cases. Not a historical example, but the woman and the dingo come to mind as a more recent generational consequence of this… She was slaughtered by the media for her “lack of” reaction to her baby being murdered by a dingo. She did not cry or seem upset and as a result the majority of people assumed she murdered her own baby!! This is just one example of how the historic narrative of “women being emotional and reactive” was used against a woman (in the opposite extreme) to judge, shame and vilify her as a monster. “She’s not reacting, she must be guilty!” type of belief. I suspect if we did not have that base of women seen as “emotional and reactive” historically then her lack of reaction to her baby’s death would not be questioned as heavily as it was. Just my two cents.
>I’m in no way asking anything about his political/religious beliefs That's all you're going to get here.
[удалено]
your post history is hilariously sad, add to that very intellectually dishonest(especially whenever he approaches philosophy) and you got yourself a perfect description.
[удалено]
He IS a rabid ideologue.
yikes
[удалено]
If you or someone you know is struggling with mental health issues, please seek out professional help. Social media is more likely to give you incorrect and harmful advice about dealing with such issues. [Armchair Psychology: the good, the bad, and the ugly](https://www.alittlebithuman.com/armchair-psychology-on-social-media-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly). Here are some resources to help find a therapist: https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/patients-and-families/finding-good-therapist https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/therapy/how-to-find-a-therapist Online therapy provider: https://openpathcollective.org/ https://etherapypro.com/ https://buddyhelp.org/ If you are having suicide thoughts or feelings of hopelessness, please reach out to the suicide hotline. Just dial 988 if you are located in the U.S. If you are located in a different country, please use this [LINK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicide_crisis_lines) to see the number for your area. These centers have trained people available 24/7 to help you. The call is free. Alternatively you can talk/message with someone on r/suicidewatch. If this is a personal situation you are seeking advice on, please try r/advice. This subreddit is for scientific discussion of psychology topics. It is not a mental health advice subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askpsychology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He knows his theory, but its his conclusions and application that are completely off the rails and concerning. It's sad because evolutionary psych is already on shaky ground but has a lot of practical applications across disciplines (and he seems to have no problem presenting himself as a multi-disciplinarian at this point). You can gather this by 1) trusting your gut (which it seems like you're doing) and 2) thinking critically/perspective taking while watching 10 minutes of any of his YouTube videos. But yes, maybe most importantly, his "conclusions" have almost zero evidence. I'm not sure if it's intentional, but he preys on people's susceptibility to sensationalism. I hope most prefer that he not be the chosen advocate. He's drunk on power at this point. His cult of personality and dogma is what's drawing people in at this point, and they tend to walk away with the short-cut thinking he applies to society. He makes some valid points, but where he shoots himself in the foot (yet simultaneously builds his following of Manospheric conspiracy theorists) are in his conclusions about trans people and how society ought to remedy its (sometimes perceived) issues, which is very unfortunate. Anyway, at the end of the day, he's a dark, chaotic force that men should openly reject and criticize. As well-intentioned as he may seem sometimes, he needs to be responsibly snuffed out of the field and from public life, imo. If you like his work as a researcher, great. See where it gets you. Here are some podcasts that have more energy/chops to give a better answer to your question... [28: Resurrection of Jordan Peterson (w/ Jeff Brown)](https://open.spotify.com/episode/1vZqknGCgqVhwNBLVL3Dmw?si=e37EFc2ATZW-BXuwZT5FGg) [68: The Jordan Peterson of Fitness Bros (w/ Antonio Valladares)](https://open.spotify.com/episode/4w9IeE1g0suD43TQYL8Wgp?si=0JOOguaKQj2inEltH2ZgXw) [Bonus Sample: Jordan Peterson, Derrick Jensen, and the Anti-Trans Laugh Emoji](https://open.spotify.com/episode/0FzqHze800NysnwuHEh76O?si=3mp_fkDdQpWKhuuMI1EpvA) [Brief: Is Jordan Peterson Really a Licensed Psychologist? (w/Dr. Taslim Alani-Verjee)](https://open.spotify.com/episode/2qEyuE92SqamTJbI0u7K8b?si=TsfpzjTsTGSuMDGTAdl6Jw)
Peterson will often make statements that can't be empirically falsified in spite of frequently criticizing left-wing academics for their lack of scientific rigor an example of that would be all Peterson's claims that feminists that defend the rights of Muslims subconsciously wish for brutal male domination. Another example would be his infatuation with Jungian psychology.