Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "Jordan B Peterson" channel.

  1. 2100
  2. 195
  3. 93
  4. 71
  5. 61
  6. 59
  7. 51
  8. 38
  9. 38
  10. 32
  11. Boris B That's not an example. That's an observation on how some people draw conclusions from little to no real evidence. You just slotted Peterson into that group of people and not assert that it must be true because Feynman is a high profile source. It's an appeal to authority. Human behaviour is not an exact science. Ten different people can respond in different ways to the exact same stimuli and, unless one has previous information on the personality traits of each individual, one can't know what their response will be. Instead, you make observations and try to establish trends in behaviour and try to find why these behaviours are the same and different. That's all that social sciences can do. Peterson has talked about male and female traits and has referred to statistics that show trends in their respective behaviours which overlap and differ. It's not an exact science because one can't accurately predict how a specific person will behave. One can make assumptions on statistical traits that have been extensively observed, but that's as far as one can go. That's not pseudo-science if you declare the inaccuracy rates and acknowledge the limitations of you data. Another example is how a doctor can predict death rates of an outbreak of a disease by saying the approximate percentage of those who will die. They'll base it on data gathered from previous outbreaks. It gives a ballpark figure, but one can't really know for sure. There is always room for error when your only source is data and variables are so varied that all can't be accounted for in a prediction. Now, back to a solid example of Peterson's preaching. One that refers to Peterson.
    28
  12. 27
  13. 25
  14. 24
  15. 22
  16. 21
  17. 21
  18. 20
  19. 19
  20. 18
  21. 18
  22. 18
  23. 17
  24. 16
  25. Boris B Your reference to Feynman was an appeal to authority. He's a very high profile scientific figure and his opinions carry weight. It's not as if you used Joe Blow down at the hardware store. You went to a Nobel Prize physicist who gave an opinion, then you placed Peterson into the category that this physicist talked about. That's the very definition of an appeal to authority. "I've thought about this for many years, and, though it's very hard to explain, I really believe it's true" What's this? A professor is NEVER allowed to give an opinion? He even implies that it's an idea that he's formulated. "I really believe it's true." That's not declaring it as fact. That's admitting that it's only him that believes it to be true. He does use statistics but he uses them as they should be. He has used them to show how personality trends differ in men and women. For example, he talked about asking, about a random woman and random man, which of the two would be the more aggressive and if you picked the man, you'd be correct 60 percent of the time. Then he added that 40 percent of the time, you'd be wrong. Why? Because that aligns with the statistical data. He didn't definitely say that men are more aggressive, period and end of story. He said that an assertion could only be applied correctly, 60 percent of the time. He then uses it to say that it means that the outliers of aggressiveness would tend to be overwhelmingly male and says that the facts do bear this out, for example, the predominance of the male population in prison. Peterson has declared himself to be a nominal Christian but he doesn't use those Christian beliefs as absolutes in his lectures. He uses them to show religious archetypes and tries to show how archetypes are developed in literature and religion to reflect and explain how humans have developed emotionally. He uses Christianity the most because that's what he's most familiar with, but he also uses other religious idea in his attempt to understand human psychological development. He presents it in such a way that a belief in a specific religion is necessary to understand how religious thought was a big part of human evolution of cognitive thought. Religious beliefs are not necessary to understand his ideas of archetypes in religion and it's not an exact science because he does use the phrase "I've thought about it a long time" continuously in his lectures. Psychology is a work in progress at all times and those in the field are trying to grapple with things that are difficult to nail down. Peterson is grappling with the psychology of religion and morality. There are no "Eureka!!!" moments in these disciplines. No definitive test tube results. There are indicators, like the Miller-Urey experiments that show that certain processes in the formation of life CAN happen naturally. It may not be the correct process but it does show the possibility to be true. You still haven't shown me an example of his preaching. Just because he became emotional when remembered some of the horrific cases that he's dealt with from his clinical practice, doesn't mean he's a preacher. It could just mean that he's human and has typical human emotions. It's an assertion that you have no way of proving but you like it because you've decided that you don't like the guy. Understandable maybe, but not exactly a valid assertion. A real example of his preaching. I like Michael Shermer and his ideas, a lot, but you're not showing me how they apply to Peterson. You see, that's where an actual example of what you're claiming would come in. That's how you show that you have something that might indicate what you say has a least some merit. It may not eliminate ALL that he's said but then again, no one is correct 100 percent of the time. One incorrect idea doesn't NOT invalidate everything a person says. We'd have to dismiss every assertion made using that as a criteria. Even Einstein made mistakes and offered claims that proved to be incorrect.
    16
  26.  @viktorkc1154  You can't have socialism without authoritarianism. He may have believed in socialism but he didn't have the political experience to see that socialism will always end in tyranny. Stalin himself declared the Soviet Union as socialist and that it was an intermediary to a full communist state. Capitalism is defined as " an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state". Online dictionary. This will be verified by any other source that you could name. There is no way the Soviet Union's economy way held and controlled by the private sector. The economy was centrally planned and the goal was to abolish all private property. Socialism requires the co-operation of all. It is the rule of tyranny as every citizen is compelled to make sure no other citizen isn't taking advantage of the system. Capitalism allows the individual to make his own decision on his economic life and financial future. Socialism doesn't. This is Socialism as defined by the online dictionary. "a political and economic theory of social organisation which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." The community being the state. No private sector. The community controls the economic system and is regulated by the state. An individual cannot build his own business or make decisions on how that business should grow. That is authoritarianism and it is the default position for socialism.
    15
  27. 15
  28. 15
  29. 14
  30. 14
  31. 14
  32. 13
  33. 13
  34. 13
  35. 12
  36. 12
  37. 11
  38. 11
  39. 11
  40. 11
  41. 11
  42. 10
  43. 10
  44. 10
  45. 10
  46. 9
  47. 9
  48. 9
  49. 9
  50. 9