Comments by "" (@psychcowboy1) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@randybutternubs5639 Were there any Peterson wins? Here are a couple of Helen wins, starting at like 41:00.
1. Helen: It works in two different ways, it makes lobsters more aggressive and it makes humans less aggressive.'
Peterson interrupting: No that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive...It makes a lobster more likely to fight again.'
[uh Whoops Jordan. She agreed with you that serotonin makes humans less aggressive, and she is wrong... for agreeing with you? Lobsters that want to fight are not displaying aggression? Fighting isn't aggression? The relevant paper is called Serotonin and Aggression Motivation in Crustaceans, concluding that serotonin makes lobsters adopt aggressive postures...SCORE: Helen 1, Jordan 0]
2."I chose lobsters, the reason I made that argument was to put paid to the absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchical structures are a secondary consequence of free market economies which is as preposterous a theory as you could have about anything.'
Helen: 'Lobsters say the thing that you ideologically want to talk about that your belief that there is a kind of Marxist ideology...'
Peterson interrupting: 'How do lobsters say that?'
[Uh what Jordan? You just explained how lobsters demonstrate that. Remember you chose lobsters to put rest to the absurd Marxist proposition, and now you are saying lobsters don't put to rest the absurd proposition? Remembering what you said 2 minutes ago can be super challenging I know.] SCORE: Helen 2, Jordan 0
3. Helen referring to equality of outcome: 'I don't think that is a widely held view.'
JP Interrupting as usual: 20% of social scientist identify as Marxist.
[Heads up JP, in the survey you are referring to, 3% of college professors identify as Marxist, and you claim that universities are dominated by leftist ideology, thus 3% of a very Left leaning sample identify as Marxist... and you are disagreeing with Helen? Whoops. 3% of a skewed sample group does not equal 'widely held view'. I guess you can teach psychology even at Harvard without having a basic grasp on scientific and mathematical analysis. The study Prevalence of Marxism in Academia states that Marxism is 'A tiny minority faith', i.e. Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. SCORE: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gamemage4750 1. Me: Give an example of JP using science in clinical psychology. You: Clinical psychology presents testable hypotheses based on chemical analysis of the brain and uses the scientific method on collected data to draw conclusions ergo science.
[Sorry, not an answer. Maybe have someone explain the concept of evidence/example to you?]
2. You: You need evidence to support a claim. Me: True, but you have yet to do that.
Peterson on alcoholism: [Here is JP as a 'scientist'.]
Individuals use and misuse alcohol (and other drugs) because of the pharmacologically mediated effects these substances have on the operation of 4 psychobiological systems, mediating response to motivationally relevant unconditioned and conditioned stimuli. These 4 systems have unique neuroanatomical structure, biochemical modes of operation, association with affect, behavior and cognition, and responsiveness to drugs of abuse. Individual variation in the operation of these systems determines individual susceptibility to initiation and maintenance of drug use and abuse. Sources of such variation differ, in a vitally important fashion, in various specific populations of individuals at heightened risk for drug abuse. Nonalcoholic sons of male alcoholics, with multigenerational family histories of male alcoholism, appear to be at heightened risk for the development of alcohol abuse because alcohol eliminates their heightened response to threat, and because they are hypersensitive to ethanol's psychomotor stimulant effects. Anxiety-sensitive individuals also appear attracted to alcohol for its anxiolytic properties. Many other important sources of idiosyncratic variability exist. Detailed analysis of such sources may lead to the development of more effective prevention and treatment programs.
[Translation: People like alcohol sometimes for how it makes you feel. If you have alcoholism in your family you may be more prone to alcoholism. Alcohol can reduce nervousness. You can analyze ways to treat and reduce alcoholism.].
3. You: Everyone knows transcendent values exist...you have to do studies. Me: Really, what studies? Transcendent values by definition are those that transcend time and culture, i.e. everyone knows they exist. Yay, I win.
4. You: Politics based on identity is not identity politics. Me: Wrong, that is precisely what it is. Did you note that JP did not define it? Do you think that blacks identifying with BLM is identity politics?
5. You: You paint everything as black and white. False: Peterson does that, I don't.
6. Me: List the benefits to the mental and economic health of the nation from my housing plan. You: And the only way you can even get a higher tax system incorporated in countries like the US is actually by making people more responsible for themselves as a part of a community. [What? If people become more responsible then you can raise taxes? Wrong. The government sets the tax rate irrespective of the level of people's responsibility.] Yay I win again.
As chaotic, pointless, and arrogant as his speaking appearances are, we can get a deeper glimpse into his delusional pretend smart guy stuff from his written material. [From Peterson Website]
Over the last fifty years, specialists in the measurement of personality (a field known as psychometrics) have been applying advanced statistical techniques such as factor analysis to study the language people use to understand themselves and each other. According to the “lexical hypothesis” –the primary guiding idea behind such work...each and every human language contains a relatively complete description of the important similarities and differences between individuals. Language has encapsulated such description because human beings are exceptionally social, and need to understand each other to cooperate effectively and avoid conflict....People who are likely to describe themselves as sad, for example, are also more likely to describe themselves as fearful, anxious, uncertain and volatile, and less likely to describe themselves as cool, collected, calm and stable...people who are nice are compassionate, empathic, caring and soft, while their polar opposites are hard, competitive, blunt and tough.
[So apparently, specialists like Peterson have determined that people are social and use language to describe stuff. Thank you specialists. Sad people can also be fearful and uncertain, and nice people are caring and compassionate. Thank you again Specialists. One question though; it really took you 50 years using advanced techniques figure this stuff out?]
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2