There must be hundreds of hours of his lectures online before he was famous. Hundreds of more of him interviewed and in debates. He has published works as a academic and researcher, he has a best selling book. But you can’t say 1 thing he is vague on even though your whole critic of him is he is too vague.
Why are you so insistent that she change your mind?
And yet…what has he said that whole time?
I find it interesting someone who made a judgement of a person on being to vague can’t name a single thing.
Yeah, I agree that his popularity is explained in part by his cheerleading of common sense.
I also agree with @Hanna that most of what he says is just that, common sense.
What I find remarkable is that the academy and soft-area academics have managed to turn him into a rich man by virtue of their own idiocy. Peterson goes away if the left could just find a way to admit that he’s right, that he mostly espouses common sense actions, and that what he says only sounds revelatory because he says it in a context they’ve provided.
2 Likes
It’s just that vague to me!
Since you guys have spent a lot more time listening to him or reading him than I have, could you write down some concise bullet points of his beliefs?
1 Like
A lot for him to sell out arenas, have millions of views, go on tour and in interviews, publish academic works, publish a best selling book.
He’s right about some stuff, he’s very wrong about others. His whole “Enforced Monogamy” spiel is pure bullcrap. It’s okay to theorize, but in reality it goes against a lot of his other core beliefs and isn’t in the least bit practical.
I just don’t believe in putting him up on a pedestal for saying a few things that everybody knows. He has a lot of stupid ideas in the midst of all of that.
And Andrew actually hit the nail on the head in that first point where he said it’s about the people who are allowed to interview him. It goes for his debates. He selects them carefully.
He has academic research published and peer reviewed and used by others in his field. How is he not much of an academic?
If anything, he is the kind of academic we need regardless of what you believe. We have enough boring nerds writing about things most people will never read of grasp living in their study. He is actually pretty sociable and can speak.
He can publish this
“Reductions in latent inhibition (LI), the capacity to screen from conscious awareness stimuli previously experienced as irrelevant, have been generally associated with the tendency towards psychosis. However,“failure” to screen out previously irrelevant stimuli might also hypothetically contribute to original thinking, particularly in combination with high IQ. Meta-analysis of two studies, conducted on youthful high-IQ samples, demonstrated that high lifetime creative achievers had significantly lower LI scores than low creative achievers (r effect size=. 31, p=. 0003, one-tailed). Eminent creative achievers (participants under 21 years who reported unusually high scores in a single domain of creative achievement) were 7 times more likely to have low rather than high LI scores, χ 2 (1, N= 25)= 10.69, φ=. 47, p=. 003.”
And he speaks about it often in simple terms in interviews referring to it.
You made the claim he is vague, i’m just asking you what you find vague. The burden of proof is on you…
I have no problem with people forming their own opinion on someone, be it vague, or inspirational or whatever opinion someone forms after listening or reading around what someone is saying.
I haven’t listened to him much, there was an interview a while back and the reporter kept telling him what he thought (a particularly irritating thing some people have a tendency to do).
But since you mention he has some stupid ideas, (a lot of them apparently) could you post one or two examples of his most stupid ideas?
I did in the post you quoted.
He does state a lot of fact and draws from research.
But most of his videos are funny because he does say something that we seem to used to know but somehow it’s not common sense now a day. The confused faces of people are just ridiculous to watch.
1 Like
@Mick here it is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn60-8Ql_44
Can you explain to me what you find stupid about it? Seriously. We have a lot of studies by social scientists on how polygamy is bad.
I said it was okay to theorize.
Ok, went back and took a look, seems this was the only idea out of “a lot of stupid ideas” you actually mentioned.
I never heard or read anything by him on the subject, so, whatever, forget about it.
Is he enforcing something?
I’m curious on where he contraction is with this idea is? And is monogamy not practical?
I don’t know anything about his “Enforced Monogamy” spiel or why you find it offensive. Can you elaborate? What do you think makes it pure bullcrap?
Also, I haven’t heard any stupid ideas come from him; just the opposite ime. Do you have a list of “stupid ideas” he has? Is it just “Enforced Monogamy” or are their other things he says that you think are stupid? Is yours a long list of stupid ideas, or just one or two that you consider to be stupid and that therefore invalidate him as a thinker?
Is it your opinion that - on the whole - Peterson is more right or more wrong?
eta: just now watching your Rogan clip.
He has corrected himself and changed his mind on record before.
Dude, I’m still watching the link posted by Andrew. Can you state what it is you are taking issue with (more than just calling it “bullshit”)? As if watching the video you link to it will become self apparent. I will watch that one too in a minute though.
edit maybe it is self evident though, I need a few minutes to watch though.