Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "Jordan B Peterson"
channel.
-
2100
-
195
-
93
-
71
-
61
-
59
-
51
-
38
-
38
-
32
-
28
-
27
-
25
-
24
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
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
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
@biancawilloughby9980
But would it have been the wisest decision to make? Could there no be consequences, to your physical health, when your body, acting in an evolutionary framework, is trying to do one thing and you're forcing it to do another by blocking its natural course? That's a question that has never been resolved.
Whether you like it or not, all the advance creatures on the planet go through a maturation process. Cats, dogs, butterflies, mosquitoes, lobsters and humans all have an inherited process that guide their bodies through maturity. It's been there for millions upon millions of years. It's a basic part of life. Now you're going to change it all by trying to stop the process that has been embedded into our genetic make-up for tens of millions of years.
We've been struggling with the affects of chemicals now, in our food and water and the very air we breathe. Now you want to inject MORE chemicals to change the very heart of your genetic blueprint. That sounds like an awful risky proposal to me. I would NEVER recommend it to a 13 year old.
You can wish your life away if that's how you really want to spend the only life you have. That also seems like a waste of the only life that you'll ever have.
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9