Jordan Peterson (branch from BPD thread)

[Brent696]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNQQIRKLPHs

Above, in this 7 minute video, Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist and Professor, addresses BPD.

Midway through the video he pauses as he visualizes what he is about to say, then states how BPD reflects a disassociation between IQ and conscientiousness, in this I feel he using the word "conscientiousness" to refer basically to the emotional body. Later he brings this forward as he refers to the temper tantrum capacity of BPDs. He also segues into the social aspects of those BPD being compromised.

So he does address these three aspects or personality, emotional, social, and intellect. But he seems to go farther as he speaks of zero correlation between the intellect and the ability to act, which I would consider the emotional WILL. Ultimately in his analysis one can see a very strong Compartmentalization between the emotion and intellect where the emotional, like a 2 year old in his words, remains in control of the personality, even to their own detriment, with the obvious implication that this effects the social functions of the personality.

In mentioning a causal foundation he references a neglect of socialization between 2 and 4, but he merely throws this out as a possibility while maintaining that they (psychologists), really don't know. He also offers Dialectic Behavioral Therapy as the best tool for BPD to deal with their condition. Dialectic Behavioral Therapy utilizes four modules,

Mindfulness: the practice of being fully aware and present in this one moment
Distress Tolerance: how to tolerate pain in difficult situations, not change it
Interpersonal Effectiveness: how to ask for what you want and say no while maintaining self-respect and relationships with others
Emotion Regulation: how to change emotions that you want to change

One might see mirrored in these modules the same efforts one finds in programs like AA. Setting aside the alcohol is merely a preliminary step, ultimately the addict must learn to grow up, to be accountable, to be conscientious, as emotional immaturity is recognized as a root factor in the addiction. And it is not like many addicts don't understand intellectually that they are addicts, but there is, at the bottom of addiction just as with BPD, a separation between the emotional body and the intellectual body.

BUT, this is in terms of degrees, as with the psychiatrists I've worked with or the STEM community of which Wolfhnd speaks, degrees of separation can still exist. A person in the scientific field might be better socialized, intellectual efficient, yet still be stunted emotionally. They may know better than to throw tantrums at work as their image and job remain important to them, but that does not mean they don't express this emotional deficit upon their spouse or children or in any number of passive aggressive ways, even towards peers. BPD diagnosis just seems to cover those who are the least controlled in society, just as there are both functioning and non-functional alcoholics.

[wolfhnd]

I have a case of Peterson overdose. I liked his lectures before anyone knew who he was. Now I have simply listened to him more than I can stand. Nothing against him but I just need a new face.

[Brent696]

I get it but unlike so many others, he actually is a psychologist. Additionally he was fairly succinct on this point.

[BadgerJelly]

I have a case of Peterson overdose. I liked his lectures before anyone knew who he was. Now I have simply listened to him more than I can stand. Nothing against him but I just need a new face.

It does sometimes worry me that people will listen to him and then ignkre his suggestions on what to read. I stumbled across him just before the whole bill C yaddayadda thing because I’m really interested in Jung and had already read quite a bit. I used his Lion King thing to help people grasp at the whole Jungian Archetype thing.

If you’re into lectures then you should really take a look at Sapolsky. He is by far the most entertaining and informative lecturer I’ve seen. Reallly engaging, moves through different aspects of his subject at a very good pace and brings to light some intriguing pieces of scientific research.

There is also Damasio’s lectures. They are a little more dumbed down, but they’re good enough to go through even if you’ve got a reasonable understanding of his work.

For me the interest in Peterson is more about my interest in how he’ll open up more serious study of Jung’s work and his ideas. It could end up mkaing Jung even less appealing though, but I doubt it.

Sadly a lot of the people I am most interested in died before the advent of videoed lectures. I have found many of the lectures recorded at Edinburgh Uni to be very stimulating - give that a go. I especially remember one about genetic engineering and livestock. Really interesting stuff.

[davidm]

I think Jordan Peterson has BPD. :-D

[TheVat]

It would be helpful if pundits like Peterson, when they step away from their actual areas of expertise, issue clear disclaimers on how their knowledge and insight may be limited. While I agree with him that some aspects of political correctness have been ridiculous, or suppressive of a free and open dialog, I find that he often offers opinions on matters like women's rights where he seems unaware of what many women around the world have to deal with on a regular basis. This demonstrates the obvious, even someone with a doctorate in psychology is capable of missing things. His "identity politics" screeds also seem to stray beyond his knowledge. I don't think anyone expects that an older white Canadian male, residing in what is arguably the nicest country in the world*, will be an expert on what oppression feels like or understand that a lot of "identity politics" is really just a continuation of civil rights movements that seek only equal opportunity and equality before the Law. I do give him credit: he truly strives to see things in an impartial way and scour bigoted attitudes from himself, but those fine intentions are in no way probative of anything. As an American who lived in places where white privilege screamed out its presence from the rooftops, I can only smile and shake my head at how little reality has intruded on his life.


*sorry Scandinavia and Scotland. It was close, really close.

[Brent696]

Despite the politicization of Peterson, to which people work hard creating ad hominem attacks, this does not subtract from his knowledge as a psychologist. The information presented in his video can be found mirrored in any number of psychological publications.

In PZ Myers (video author) attempt to discredit Peterson across the board he makes an unfair contention between Joseph Campbell and Peterson, both Campbell and Peterson are delving into areas of the subconscious mind. Campbell brings the mythology alive as a code that has reflected our subconscious awareness of nature and ourselves, Peterson has done likewise in this brief comment. Nobody in their right mind would think Peterson is actually stating these mythological symbols are actual pictures of DNA, it is simply a fact in many areas, deeper knowledge of the subconscious mind speaks in symbolic representations.

Myers is not only throwing Peterson under the bus, but Campbell, Jung, and any number of brilliant minds throughout history in his ad hominem, political, stigmatization campaign.

If we stick to the issue of BPD, what it is, what possible causes there are for it, how it has possibly become a catchall diagnosis, then any argument against Peterson's views need to utilize dissenting opinions from credible sources as regards the subject of BPD, not his views on symbolic mythology.

[wolfhnd]

Sapolsky is a winner, thank you.

I think I'm going to disagree with him on freewill but that's ok.

[BadgerJelly]

Biv -

He generally does say what his expertise is and mentions what he doesn’t know about. The whole double helix business is likely to do with the myth of Crick taking LSD. In other lectures Peterson does mention this and also mentions the speculative nature of psychology and having an openness to weird ideas.

The race issue has much more weight in the US because the US ... well, you know.

If the aim is to make someone look like an idiot and ignore the sensible parts then so be it. That appears to be how some people operate. Some people want people who say nothing other than what they agree with and those are the kind of people who instantly shut down and assume someone is talking nothing but nonsense simlpy because it is easier for them to dismiss rather than investigate.

If he has a area of expertise it is most certainly in identity politics and totalitarian regimes at both ends of the spectrum. He doesn’t deny so-called “white privilege” but he does, as do I, refuse to put all the ills of the world at the feet of western society.

If Trump turned around tomorrow and said all the officials in the Whitehouse were going to be 50% men and 50% women would you celebrate that? I suspect many would take to the idea and think it a “good” and “fair” idea.

The Peterson business is fizzling out. Give a year or two and no one will really be concerned or pay much attention to the ridiculous drama surrounding identity politics.

Other than him hopefully opening up Jung to people a little (and I’m still a little cautious about some of the references he makes to Jung and whether or not a lot of what he says is meely a dilute version of Jung) there is also the debate about Poltical Correctness where many people perhaps saw Stephen Fry for the first time and saw him outshine everyone on the stage including Peterson.

An important issue in the UK now is how comedy is to be regulated on the internet. The BBC has always been very conservative and tried not to upset people/nations. It goes a little over the top sometimes. Anyone working on TV in the UK will comment about how certain things are censored - nothing new. The issue I see now is that this is trying to be extended to internet videos and some mindblowingly stupid annoucements have bee made by local police services regarding “offensive” speech.

Anyway, I’m optimistic :)

The kind of talk I noted in the OP is what gives the softer sciences a bad name. Maybe the standards in universities have slipped too far and it’ll take some work to get people up to speed? Maybe it’s always been this way. Either way education is more readily available to more people across the globe than ever before. All we need now is a shift in cultural attitudes (in some places) to instill people with - or rather revive - a sense of awe and wonder, to feed the natural instinct of discovery and exploration.

[wolfhnd]

I think Peterson has made his case pretty well. Personal responsibility not activism is the road to "salvation". When he says the Idenitarian right and Idenitarian left are two sides of the same coin it may not be entirely accurate but does address some disturbing realities. I hear slight echos of eugenics in ideas like BPD and toxic masculinity.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... loset-left

[davidm]

I think Peterson has made his case pretty well.

You would.

[wolfhnd]

I realize we have wondered far afield of a focus on the original topic. Unfortunately the nature nurture issue is relevant. These discussions always have a socio-political dimension as in Gould vs Wilson. That is probably the best reason to stick behavioral science in a nether region between science and philosophy. It's the interplay between cultural evolution and physically evolution that makes psychology bewilderingly complicated. In the same way time and randomness make biological evolution obscure a similar problem exists for cultural evolution something that Peterson is trying to unravel. Although Peterson has some disdain for Dennett I still think a bit of philosophical pragmatism is useful. Some degree of reduction of complexity is necessary. Dennett does these by illustrating that in the cultural world things that aren't real in the traditional scientific sense are real cultural phenomenon that effect the physical world. Freewill is for our purposes here the best example. The unsatisfying but illuminating view that Dennett argues for is that freewill is a real cultural construct that alters physical reality by changing behavior. Freewill isn't real to a neurologist because of a prejudice for a certain definition of real.

I may explain why I think the above is relevant to the above post if I can come up with a semi coherent narrative.

[hyksos]

Ahh.... Jordan Peterson content that is not composed of incoherent rants at "feminists" and "marxists" and "marxist feminists". A breath of fresh air.

[A_Seagull]

It would be helpful if pundits like Peterson, when they step away from their actual areas of expertise, issue clear disclaimers on how their knowledge and insight may be limited. While I agree with him that some aspects of political correctness have been ridiculous, or suppressive of a free and open dialog, I find that he often offers opinions on matters like women's rights where he seems unaware of what many women around the world have to deal with on a regular basis. This demonstrates the obvious, even someone with a doctorate in psychology is capable of missing things. His "identity politics" screeds also seem to stray beyond his knowledge. I don't think anyone expects that an older white Canadian male, residing in what is arguably the nicest country in the world*, will be an expert on what oppression feels like or understand that a lot of "identity politics" is really just a continuation of civil rights movements that seek only equal opportunity and equality before the Law. I do give him credit: he truly strives to see things in an impartial way and scour bigoted attitudes from himself, but those fine intentions are in no way probative of anything. As an American who lived in places where white privilege screamed out its presence from the rooftops, I can only smile and shake my head at how little reality has intruded on his life.


*sorry Scandinavia and Scotland. It was close, really close.

Sounds like an ad hominem to me.

Every one is entitled to their opinion. One doesn't need to be an 'expert' in a given field to offer an interesting perspective on it.

[TheVat]

I was questioning his knowledge base, not his character. I never questioned that expertise and perspective can be developed outside a scholar's field, but rather question that he has knowledge and direct experience of civil rights issues as they play out in the USA. And, I will add, his Holocaust comments (see recent thread and attached video there) give me further reason to question how well based his ideas are in historical realities.

I have no wish to attack the man personally (ad hominem's actual meaning), and I admire his passion for understanding archetypes and applying Jungian concepts to modern life. Really, my main point was: YMMV. I have grounds to question anyone's views on feminism or civil rights when their words betray serious gaps in knowledge or fail to reflect any real dialog with those who do experience oppression. Peterson reminds me of the famous The Onion headline -- "Racism Over, White People Declare." Sure, he could be developing key insights as we speak, and I'd be the first to cheer him on.

[A_Seagull]

I was questioning his knowledge base, not his character. I never questioned that expertise and perspective can be developed outside a scholar's field, but rather question that he has knowledge and direct experience of civil rights issues as they play out in the USA. And, I will add, his Holocaust comments (see recent thread and attached video there) give me further reason to question how well based his ideas are in historical realities.

I have no wish to attack the man personally (ad hominem's actual meaning), and I admire his passion for understanding archetypes and applying Jungian concepts to modern life. Really, my main point was: YMMV. I have grounds to question anyone's views on feminism or civil rights when their words betray serious gaps in knowledge or fail to reflect any real dialog with those who do experience oppression. Peterson reminds me of the famous The Onion headline -- "Racism Over, White People Declare." Sure, he could be developing key insights as we speak, and I'd be the first to cheer him on.

From Wikipedia :
"argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

In my opinion if one disagrees with a person's views, the only valid argument is to point out logical or factual problems with the view itself. To attack a person's credibility, whether personal or professional, indicates that one has no better argument or in fact no argument at all.

[TheVat]

I hope that this position is not one you cling to, if you ever need to select a neurosurgeon for yourself or a loved one. Ad hominem can be a red herring, sometimes, when professional credentials are of critical importance. While you may not be able to refute the logic or factual knowledge of a neurosurgeon, I suspect if his diploma came from Jim Bob College in Jamaica, you might consider going with other one who trained at Tufts or Northwestern or Stanford. I was posting briefly, had limited time, and didn't go onto the conceptual problems I see in Peterson's ideas about feminism or civil rights or the Holocaust. If I had, you would better understand that I question his credibility because those problems of logic and facts appear to reflect missing areas in his learning.

Have a good holiday break. I won't be replying further, due to travel and family obligations. This will not reflect any dismissal of your concerns. I regret that I cannot clone myself and have a copy write long analytical essays on JP's ideological ideas.

[TheVat]

And if you have logic and facts based analysis to buttress Peterson on those issues, feel very welcome to present them here.

[davidm]

Vat did not commit an ad hom.

First, ad hom is not an insult. It is an informal fallacy wherein one dismisses an argument or a conclusion in advance, because of some aspect of the character of the person advancing the argument.

Example:

Hitler was a vegetarian.
But Hitler was a bad person.
Therefore, vegetarians, and vegetarianism, are bad.

Formally:

x argues for y.
But y is a z.
Therefore, x is false.

An ad hom can even be a compliment, albeit condescending. Example:

Mary is much too intelligent to believe her stupid argument. Therefore, her argumet is wrong.

Still, ad hom is an informal fallacy, and there’s nothing wrong with being suspicious of an argument because the person making it is a known liar or lacks credentials in the requisite field of which he speaks. If Donald Trump tries to make an argument in favor of any x, I’m going to be dubious of x in advance, just because Trump is a known serial liar in addition to being stupid, vacuous, vicious, and morally bankrupt. Still, I will consider x on its merits even in Trump’s case, but will automatically be suspicioius of x.

Finally, it’s perfectly OK (though perhaps impolite) to insult or ridicule someone for making a bad argument, after the argument has been found to be bad on its merits.

Ad hom: Because you’re an idiot, you’re wrong.

Not ad hom: You are wrong, and this proves that you’re an idiot.

There are no ad homs in what follows:

Jordan Peterson: “venal, ugly, and intellectually dishonest”

[A_Seagull]

Vat did not commit an ad hom.

First, ad hom is not an insult. It is an informal fallacy wherein one dismisses an argument or a conclusion in advance, because of some aspect of the character of the person advancing the argument.

Example:

Hitler was a vegetarian.
But Hitler was a bad person.
Therefore, vegetarians, and vegetarianism, are bad.

Formally:

x argues for y.
But y is a z.
Therefore, x is false.

An ad hom can even be a compliment, albeit condescending. Example:

Mary is much too intelligent to believe her stupid argument. Therefore, her argumet is wrong.

Still, ad hom is an informal fallacy, and there’s nothing wrong with being suspicious of an argument because the person making it is a known liar or lacks credentials in the requisite field of which he speaks. If Donald Trump tries to make an argument in favor of any x, I’m going to be dubious of x in advance, just because Trump is a known serial liar in addition to being stupid, vacuous, vicious, and morally bankrupt. Still, I will consider x on its merits even in Trump’s case, but will automatically be suspicioius of x.

Finally, it’s perfectly OK (though perhaps impolite) to insult or ridicule someone for making a bad argument, after the argument has been found to be bad on its merits.

Ad hom: Because you’re an idiot, you’re wrong.

Not ad hom: You are wrong, and this proves that you’re an idiot.

There are no ad homs in what follows:

Jordan Peterson: “venal, ugly, and intellectually dishonest”

Well you are wrong, therefore.....

[davidm]

Well you are wrong, therefore.....

I believe it's a rule here that when you say someone is wrong, you have to present evidence and argument of why you think the person is wrong.

My analysis of ad hom is not wrong.

[-1-]

Vat did not commit an ad hom.

First, ad hom is not an insult. It is an informal fallacy wherein one dismisses an argument or a conclusion in advance, because of some aspect of the character of the person advancing the argument.

Read your own definition, Davidm.

Vat dismissed the argument saying "Peterson is not an expert, therefore he should... etc." The quote is not a verbatim one, but to denote the speaker.

This fits your presented template perfectly.

Then you say it does not fit the template.

Are you blind to reason? You can't see that?

It is nice to take sides with your friends and alliances, except on philosophy boards, where logic and reason should be (but alas is not) the only rule of the day.

[-1-]

I hope that this position is not one you cling to, if you ever need to select a neurosurgeon for yourself or a loved one.

This is fallacious reasoning, drawing the wrong parallel. There may be a name for this fallacy, but I don't know what that name is.

When you select a surgeon, you don't judge him by what his argument is. You do and need to rely on outside reputation, which includes the surgeon's having attained the requirements to pass his state or other (e.g. provincial, in Canada) exam to become a surgeon.

You are comparing apples with oranges, Vat.

[-1-]

I was questioning his knowledge base, not his character. I never questioned that expertise and perspective can be developed outside a scholar's field, but rather question that he has knowledge and direct experience of civil rights issues as they play out in the USA.

More logically unsound arguments by Vat.

Vat here demands that for one to have a sufficient knowledge base, one needs direct experience.

If this demand was required for knowing, then all of history of more than 140 years ago is outside of anyone's expertise and perspective. Is that still your position, Vat? Do you cling to it? That nobody, absolutely nobody alive today, can be an expert and have perspective on, for instance, the Civil War in the USA, or on the rise, decline and fall of the Roman empire? Because your claim indicates that you believe this is true.

[davidm]

Read your own definition, Davidm.

Vat dismissed the argument saying "Peterson is not an expert, therefore he should... etc." .

Oh, really? I see you have that in quote marks.

Can you direct me to that quote of his, please?

[davidm]

Incidentally, even if he did write the words you put quote marks around, which he did not, it still would not be ad hom.

1. NOT ad hom: “x is not an expert on y, therefore he should be careful about what he says concerning y.”

2. Ad hom: “x is not an expert on y, therefore he is wrong about y.”

Vat clearly neither said nor implied version 2.

[davidm]

Finally, it is perfectly possible to be wrong about something because you are not an expert on the topic. It is quite common to be wrong for this reason. Ad hom occurs when you say that someone is wrong about something just because he is not an expert on the topic. This is a never a sufficient reason to dismiss an argument, and is pure ad hom — to the man. After all, it is also possible for a non-expert to be right about some topic outside his or her expertise — which is precisely why you must consider an argument on its merits, and not on its source.

[hyksos]

There was murderous intent from the top levels of the NAZI high brass all the way down to the guy who "cut the grass" at the concentration camps.

Zyklon was manufactured for and then used to kill human beings. Lots of human beings -- very quickly.

You have 19 to 24 year aged people around in you in a lecture hall -- those young minds hungry for information need to know about the Frankfurt Trials. Bar none.

You don't start off by filling young minds with neo-Nazi talking points. Because the danger is you are basically "recruiting" the ignorant and the young into Holocaust Denial. You don't feed to the young talking points about "We can't be sure of Hitler's true motivations." "Zyklon is a de-lousing agent." "Sure people died at the camps, but it was because they were cut off from supply lines due to Allied bombing." et cetera et cetera.

All this dog-whistely talking points are perfectly fine grist for discussion IF you are talking to grey-haired historians of World War II -- those learned and grizzled academics who already know the "basic history" and already concluded genocide took place ( with murderous intent ).

I have absolutely no desire to "censor" Jordan Peterson. I am not "against free speech" at all. It is probably true that some redux of Zyklon was used for a purpose unrelated to killing humans. Sure. No argument. It is probably true that a camp, or two camps were "cut off from supply lines due to bombing by Allied planes." Yes. Probably. I do not disagree with such talking points on factual grounds.

But Mr. Peterson, what the fuck are you doing feeding this crap to a room full of 20 year olds? Do you want neo-nazis? Because this is how you get neo-nazis. Okay?

Genocide was perpetrated in Eastern europe on an industrial scale by the German military. These are the facts. There was not a single "jew" in the room during the Frankfurt Trials. Not one. Jordan Peterson does not want to fill young minds with those facts. Instead, he wants to him-haw for 45 minutes about alternative uses of zyklon chemical.


We have basically now people running around this forum demanding "black and white word-for-word holocaust denial out of Jordan Peterson" , or else if not provided to their liking, then I am somehow "smearing him" for ad-hominem points. The problem is that Jordan Peterson is too intelligent and crafty to say it out loud. He takes the passive-aggressive approach. Instead Peterson will line up all the neo-nazi dog whistles end-to-end in front of a large crowd, and never draw any definitive conclusions. I suppose what Peterson is trying to do is hope there is a impressionable young man in the back of the room -- some quiet smart kid -- who absorbs all the talking points and starts wondering in his mind if "the camps weren't as bad as advertised by historians".

There were human beings who were murdered, their bodies tossed into pits and then bulldozed over at Treblinka. Those people will be remembered. The hatred and racism that caused their murders will be remembered. I will proceed to this end. Peterson fanboys on this forum can try and stop me. You will not succeed.

History will forget you. History will forget Jordan Peterson. History will never forget the victims of the holocaust.

[BadgerJelly]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wtI8RKe6HwE

[davidm]

Jordan Peterson is an ass

Hey, dueling links! :-D