О Джордане Питерсоне

О Джордане Питерсоне

от Евгений Волков -
Количество ответов: 2
 
Ash Wilson-Smith
Ash Wilson-Smith, An observer of global politics and social trends

Because no one ever asks him to criticize conservative viewpoints.

More often than not, he spends the vast majority of his time in interviews trying to explain how his viewpoints differ radically from traditional conservative positions, or from the extremes of the political spectrum (cue all the straw-man arguments re: the Alt-Right). Why?

Because none of them could be assed to go into depth and explore the complexity of his work. I refer here to Maps of Meaning, and not to 12 Rules for Life. 12 Rules has some minimally-complex ideas embedded throughout, but it is much like a drop of water in an ocean when compared to MoM.

The Alt-Right regularly comes up in conversation as a result of all the straw-manning that we have seen in recent times. That is, Peterson gets accused of pandering to them, or not denouncing them sufficiently enough, or because they like a few things that he says (NB: they too take things out of context for their own benefit, by the way - they don’t understand an iota of what he is saying) so he must be their new “darling”, etc., blah blah blah.

Irrespective of the medium, they become the focus of conversation because “We can discredit Peterson by linking him to radicals and extremists, so let’s do that!”Yeah, ok. Whatever floats your intellectually-bankrupt boat. If a reporter had no other agenda other than to unravel his ideas and explore them, they would ask about his views on both sides of politics.

However, the focus of most media outlets is: “Why does he, and 50% of the public, continue to crucify us over our interviews with him!? We must lash out in response! Self-reflection/ponderance on what we are doing wrong is for the weak!


TLDR: Because no one asks him too. They are too busy trying to misconstrue what he is saying, or they are seeking to validate their own presuppositions.

 
 
Upvote · 11
 

About the Author

Ash Wilson-Smith

Ash Wilson-Smith

Aspiring neurosurgeon, musician, human.
 
Research affiliate at Collaborative Research Group
 
MD from University of New South WalesExpected 2020
 
Lives in Sydney, Australia
 
507.6k answer views35.8k this month

More Answers from Ash Wilson-Smith View More

Did Dr. Peterson use a variation of paradox of tolerance and double standard, when effectively responding to and stumping Channel 4’s Cathy Newman, who asserted that free speech, specifically improper use of pronouns, was offensive?
2.4k Views
What would happen if you were swallowed by a whale?
240.9k Views
Can a person with autism become a surgeon, like Shaun in "Good Doctor"?
4.3k Views
Was the Jordan Peterson & Kathy Newman interview a cultural watershed moment in history, in your opinion?
6.5k Views

всего слов - 518

В ответ на Евгений Волков

Re: О Джордане Питерсоне

от Евгений Волков -
 
Ash Wilson-Smith
 

That depends on whether society is finally ready to act on this kind of poor reporting/journalism or not. Take a look at these fine memes that the people of the internet have brewed up to illustrate Newman’s complete lack of objectivity.

I wish I could honestly say that they were hyperbolic.



But okay, in all seriousness, the aftermath of this interview really does speak for itself:


The way that this interview has been portrayed, on both sides of the political spectrum, is nothing short of appalling.

I have actually seen a lot of Newman’s work in the past, and she has always remained professional (well, for the most part - some instances are debatable). But, throughout this interview, she illustrated time and time again that she did not have the intellectual nuance for the debate that she was engaged in. She messed up, big time, by coming into this interview with a very clear intent on undermining Peterson and his position on “hot topics” like feminism/the gender pay gap/the relationship dynamics between men and women.

And that intent ultimately destroyed her journalistic integrity, because she clearly has not done her research, nor did she make any attempt to understand his position on these topics without straw-manning the Hell out of them. To make matters worse, she spoke to Jordan amicably and cordially before going on air, and only turned nasty once the cameras started rolling.

To make things very clear: Peterson is not anti-feministic, nor is he transphobic/homophobic/racist/whatever term you want to throw at him to silence debate and discussion. Hell, if you had read through his work, or listened to his many lectures/discourses, you’d know this. He openly admits to being a feminist in many of his lectures, but protests vehemently over what it has turned into today.


As for the backlash: seriously? It’s now misogynistic to call out awful reporting? Or for mocking said awful reporting? No, I’m calling BS.

There are obviously limits to how far you can take mocking someone. Obviously. Calling for her death is entirely indefensible, if indeed it did happen.

However, this is incredibly hard to elucidate, particularly when half of the newspapers in the UK called Peterson an “anti-feminist” purely for disagreeing with left-wing ideology. People are skeptical, and rightly so. Lauding her as a hero who stood against a tide of trolls simply for doing her job is laughable, given she didn’t do her job, and the vast majority of criticism centres around her lack of objectivity and professionalism.

To further the point of how utterly one-sided this all appears to be - I don’t see the political Left complaining when Fox News cops a handful (although they really do deserve it a lot of the time), or when right-wing figureheads get trashed throughout Liberal channels without a chance to offer rebuke in contest (by and large, they don’t deserve it). It’s all ok, because they are nasty, backward people. Right?

Nah, not ok.

Very rarely do you see a positive article about a Republican or conservative in the media, unless it comes from a source not worth listening to. Which is cause for concern in-of-itself. And no, it is not because they are all bad people.


The state of politics and political discourse, as it stands today, is nothing short of concerning. You can shut down your opponents by tagging them with a list of terms (e.g. racist, homophobic, transphobic, libtard, etc.), or by falling back on ideology that is fundamentally designed to be in opposition to bipartisanship, be that Alt-Right/Neo-Marxist/whatever the Hell is in fashion right now.

I sure hope this interview was a watershed moment, because all this noise is starting to scare me.

 
 
Upvote · 367
 
Jaime Morris
Jaime Morris

Good answer.

...
 

About the Author

Ash Wilson-Smith

Ash Wilson-Smith

Aspiring neurosurgeon, musician, human.
 
Research affiliate at Collaborative Research Group
 
MD from University of New South WalesExpected 2020
 
Lives in Sydney, Australia
 
507.6k answer views35.8k this month

всего слов - 701

В ответ на Евгений Волков

Re: О Джордане Питерсоне

от Евгений Волков -
 
Ash Wilson-Smith
 

In short, no.

Peterson’s style of debate is one that aligns closely with reductionism. He narrows down on topics further and further until the source of its existence is made clear. In the absence of something to reduce to its core, he poses a lot of questions that, by and large, people have not taken the time to actually consider for themselves.

A reductionistic model for analysis

I personally find this approach immensely satisfying, as it gives you a level of appreciation (not understanding, because that is inherently subjective) of the overwhelming complexity of relationships between systems.

But let’s look at a number of Peterson’s points that have been raised in recent times (and in the Newman interview):

  1. Can men and women effectively work together in the workplace, in the absence of sexual tension/intimacy?
    1. The data on this are limited, given we have only been working in close proximity to each other for less than a century in the professional realm. How do we go about measuring this into the future, in such a way that is rational and sensible?
    2. If we impose legislation that acts on a presumption of “guilty until proven innocent”, will further degradations to the fundamental principles of law continue (presupposing that they have in the first place)?
      1. What role does “trial by public opinion” play in all of this, given we know how that often tends to go?
    3. If sexual tension and intimacy are indeed critical to the functioning of a healthy, non-repressive workplace, is the presence of sexual harassment surprising?
      1. How can we expect individuals to engage in something so inherently risky as the courting process, without expecting extremes of outcome to occur (i.e. sexual harassment)?
      2. What can we do in order to minimise sexual harassment in the workplace? Do we set policies where colleagues cannot interact on that level with one another? Do we make employees wear a uniform? Do we reconsider the role of makeup?
  2. Why is there a gap in the median earnings between men and women?
    1. Yes, gender is one factor that plays a role, but why does it play a role? Further, why aren’t the economists of the world coming forth with the overwhelming evidence of gender being the only contributing factor to this gap?
      1. Univariate analysis is trash, folks (NB: that’s my personal view). Try being a fast trader on the stock exchange or an investment banker looking at funds using a model that analyses only one variate, and see how well you go. Hint: You won’t be working as a fast trader/IB for very long. I am also training as a doctor whilst working as a medical researcher in my spare time, and from that experience, univariate approaches often yield worthless results. Life is more complex than that, and if you try to hyper-simplify it, good luck being taken seriously.
  3. Why does someone’s capacity to be offended restrict me from questioning their worldview or ideas?
    1. If one is able to impose restrictions on my words and behaviour, why can I not question that within the confines of the democratic process?
  4. If I am unable to question someone due to their perceived offence at my line of inquiry, what happens when that is applied to a societal level?
    1. Will this lead us down a road that we have gone before? Why/why not?
    2. What are the punishments to be levied against someone for being offensive (hate speech/freedom of speech laws considered)? Do we imprison people? Do we destroy their reputations?

Note that none of these questions is an opinion or statement of support in either direction (minus my authorial intrusion); they are merely questions that have to be asked. I think this is why Peterson is so disliked by a lot of people - he asks questions that people assume reflect his opinion, or that offend them because it gets them thinking about what their actual motivations are. He is a psychologist, for God’s sake. His job is to ask uncomfortable questions. However, no one wants to hear that the very actions and behaviours that they are manifesting are the same that caused the persecution and death of millions less than a century before. On both sides of the political spectrum. Hence, people assumed that the person making those claims is an alarmist, or, on a more primitive level, they are an enemy to the very foundations of their being.

Listen to the words and actions of these people, and make up your own mind.


It is entirely unsurprising that arguments and debates activate the same regions of the brain that are responsible for the “fight or flight” response. Why else is politics so utterly polarising? Hell, put a democrat and a republican in the same room and get them to come to an agreement on gun control, and see what the outcome is (hint: we have and it’s painful). Anger, torment, frustration - all are fundamental aspects of the political process. How we manage them, however, distinguishes a dictatorial body politic from a democratic one.

I prefer the body politic where we sit and debate ideas and come to a slow, painful resolution, not the one where the doors of your house are kicked by death as the clock chimes midnight.


All of these phenomena tie back to one’s underlying psychology, which then merges and interacts with the psychology of the community, which then merges and interacts with the psychology of the society. Traversing this maelstrom is Peterson’s forte. Let the man question the Hell out of society.

Literally.

 
 
Upvote · 52
 

About the Author

Ash Wilson-Smith

Ash Wilson-Smith

Aspiring neurosurgeon, musician, human.
 
Research affiliate at Collaborative Research Group
 
MD from University of New South WalesExpected 2020
 
Lives in Sydney, Australia
 
507.6k answer views35.8k this month

всего слов - 1013