Jordan Peterson, outraged over diversity efforts, quits tenured professorship

[Preety_India]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Just say you disagree with his political views or epistemology or whatever.

To me his extreme views are a sign that he lacks academic excellence. Having accolades doesn't make a person excellent in a field because those can be achieved by any means. 

What a person says gives more credence to a person's genuine potential. 

His views tell me that he is not an excellent academic because an excellent academic simply cannot hold such views and would not be a pseudo intellectual parading extremist views on YouTube. 

It's not the problem of disagreeing with his political philosophy. 

I simply don't buy that he is an academic. 

 

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

His views tell me that he is not an excellent academic because an excellent academic simply cannot hold such views and would not be a pseudo intellectual parading extremist views on YouTube. 

It's not the problem of disagreeing with his political philosophy. 

I view these as identical. Am I wrong?

[Preety_India]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

I view these as identical. Am I wrong?

Based on what he says generally on YouTube, I  hold him as neither an academic nor an intellectual. 

At best I'll regard him as an ignorant pseudo intellectual desperately trying to grasp at the straws. 

 

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Based on what he says generally on YouTube, I  hold him as neither an academic nor an intellectual. 

At best I'll regard him as an ignorant pseudo intellectual desperately trying to grasp at the straws. 

What he says on YouTube regarding psychology (his academic work) is top-notch, solid stuff. What he says on YouTube regarding politics I disagree with. I just think you have a weird definition of academia, that's all  

[Preety_India]

19 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What he says on YouTube regarding psychology (his academic work) is top-notch, solid stuff. What he says on YouTube regarding politics I disagree with. I just think you have a weird definition of academia, that's all  

I think your description of his personality is weird as well. His psychology is just rambling with some Jung stuff thrown in here and there. 

It's not that my definition of academia is weird, it's just that I hold academicians to a very high standard that Peterson doesn't reach. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Preety_India

[Tim R]

31 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Based on what he says generally on YouTube, I  hold him as neither an academic nor an intellectual. 

At best I'll regard him as an ignorant pseudo intellectual desperately trying to grasp at the straws. 

Sounds like you've only seen the political stuff, what a shame. His psychology lectures are extremely high quality and incredibly insightful.

[Preety_India]

2 minutes ago, Tim R said:

Sounds like you've only seen the political stuff, what a shame. His psychology lectures are extremely high quality and incredibly insightful.

Before watching his political views, I used to watch his psychology lectures on YouTube. He had uploaded those. 

At first I felt that he was very insightful. But then it became rambling endless rambling and confusion and more confusion. It also felt like he was brainwashing me with his own brand of psychology, I began to feel uncomfortable because I didn't want to be brainwashed by his concepts so I had to stop watching his content. 

To each his own. Maybe some people find his psychology stuff insightful. I find it confusing and rambling. Like he is going in circles. Sorry but that's not my type. 

Psychology to me is someone trying to bring more clarity rather than confusion. 

I mean he is good at talk and uses that skill. 

[Gesundheit2]

7 minutes ago, Tim R said:

His psychology lectures are extremely high quality and incredibly insightful.

Can you link something here? Anything would be good, but maybe you could personalize the picking for me, like what you would think I need to hear 

[Tim R]

It's one thing to not resonate with someone's style of teaching, it's another thing to say 

55 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

I  hold him as neither an academic nor an intellectual. 

At best I'll regard him as an ignorant pseudo intellectual desperately trying to grasp at the straws. 

...

You might want to reconsider what you mean by "academic" because a Hirsch index of 51 in insane. So yes, he is a serious academic. Whether you agree with his political views or not is a totally different issue.

[Tim R]

@Gesundheit2 I highly recommend his 2017 lecture series "Maps of Meaning" and "Personality and Transformation", I absolutely love them. And his biblical series is great!

What you personally need to hear? Oh man who knows? 

I think my favorite lectures are "Phenomenology of the divine" and "Kain and Able". Although to be honest, there are so many good lectures that often just blew me away... If you're interested in psychology, you'll probably find every single one of them interesting, at least it was like that for me. Some I've watched multiple times because of how much knowledge and wisdom is packed in some of them, one time won't do.

[Jodistrict]

The stuff on the Bible and Jung  are speculative and  irrelevant to clinical psychology.   He is really functioning as a pundit offering his opinions on current concerns.  There is nothing wrong with that, but it should be made clear that he is just expressing his opinions and is not an expert providing  facts and interpretation on current research in clinical psychology.

[Tim R]

8 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

it should be made clear that he is just expressing his opinions and is not an expert providing  facts and interpretation on current research in clinical psychology.

He is a clinical psychologist, you know that?

[Jodistrict]

24 minutes ago, Tim R said:

He is a clinical psychologist, you know that?

Obviously, but my point is the bulk of his commentary has nothing to do with clinical psychology.  He is not functioning as an expert, but as a pundit giving his opinions.  I am not saying there is anything wrong with that - just making it clear.  

[Preety_India]

1 minute ago, Jodistrict said:

He is not functioning as an expert, but as a pundit giving his opinions.  I am not saying there is anything wrong with that - just making it clear.  

I agree with this. 

 

[Preety_India]

Also just showing what others think. 

 

 

[Roy]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

Sure, but many people will feel the same way about Leo for example. Just because it didn't help you doesn't mean it doesn't help others.

I think people are quite biased in these regards.

That's exactly it. Man the internet has completely destroyed our charitability towards each other. I want to be optimistic, but at this point I'm not convinced it's invention has been a net positive for humanity, looking at how divided and deluded with misinformation we are these days.

Every single god damn person is subject to a personality cult. People are so addicted to reactionary thinking that either you're a bootlicking simp for X person, OR you think they're the next Hitler maliciously scheming to overthrow your personal beloved system so they can kneel on your neck.

Jordan Peterson is just a guy, Joe Rogan is just a guy, Leo is just a guy, Donald Trump is just a guy, they are all just people, we are all just people with different thoughts and experiences trying to make sense of, and do things in this world. Everyone acts like someone pissed in their cheerios.

Maybe it's just because I was a kid, but I remember growing up when the internet was on it's rise and being absolutely amazed at what it means and all the possibilities. Fast forward to now and it's like, this is it? This steaming pile of shit is really it?

It's probably just my jaded perspective, but something feels seriously fucked up.

[Leo Gura]

It is silly to asusme that academic excellence and bad political takes are mutually exclusive.

You can make great scientific discoveries and be a Nazi at the same time.

[Preety_India]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It is silly to asusme that academic excellence and bad political takes are mutually exclusive.

You can make great scientific discoveries and be a Nazi at the same time.

Sorry I disagree with this. 

If a person cannot see their own blindspots then they are already a failed intellectual and academic. 

This is like saying a doctor is a good doctor but he doesn't understand chemistry. But understanding chemistry is a vital part of being a good doctor. 

Politics has similarities with philosophy. Philosophy has a connection with both psychology and academia.. If a person has huge blindspots with his political philosophy, I'm forced to question any of their academic and intellectual skills. 

Those two things can't reconcile. 

[Preety_India]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It is silly to asusme that academic excellence and bad political takes are mutually exclusive.

You can make great scientific discoveries and be a Nazi at the same time.

This is akin to saying that a judge is racist but he is great at his job of assessing cases. Do you see how contradictory that will sound? 

If the judge is racist, then his own bias might have impacted his judgment in many cases and his evaluation of people involved might have been heavily biased? 

It seems like a contradiction to me because a judge is supposed to be unbiased. 

Similarly an academic should know better what comes out of his mouth. His credibility is in question if he says ignorant things. 

[kieranperez]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You can make great scientific discoveries and be a Nazi at the same time.

Just like one can have many mystical experiences and still be a nazi (which actually happened in WW2 believe it or not).