Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Jordan Peterson

13567

Comments

  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,641
    Aside from the fact you're not really referring to most of what I said... Here's some attention to the raw IQ*. This thing here is normal distribution of IQ in western population.


    Avarege IQ is considered to be of 85 to 115
    70-85 is considered below avarage. Everything less than this is considered a intellectual disability. Now, that would be 2% of population that are incapable of intellectual development.

    I don't know where you live, but I can say how things are where I live. There are schools with classes for people with disabillities, intellectual ones included. There were social campaigns encouraging employers to hire people with disabillities. I won't even mention non-profit organizations and the like. It's not like those 2% are utterly ignored, their existence not acknowledged or actively discriminated against. But you also can't expect an entire society to bend to that 2%. It is utterly unrealsitic perspective.

    It is also unrealistic to expect that changing the system is what would somehow prevent some people to see less intelligent as less worthy. Sorry, that would require different actions.

    Also I am pretty sure that paying someone less for whatever reason is illegal in western society. Correct me if I am wrong.


    *Skills abtained via interraction with envoirment and learning about it are one of the factors included in raw IQ. So yeah, I think you need to know that. Your "focus on raw IQ" thing is pointless, because that doesn't focus on biological factors alone.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,872
    edited June 18
    An IQ less than 100 is normal in terms of statistics, yes, but already severely limits your career choices. Even operating a cash register can be too difficult/slow, leading to unnecessary strife in the workplace.

    ThacoBell
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 2,099

    An IQ less than 100 is normal in terms of statistics, yes, but already severely limits your career choices. Even operating a cash register can be too difficult/slow, leading to unnecessary strife in the workplace.

    I'd say that an IQ of less than 85 puts severe strain on people living in advanced technocratic societies.
    And according to the graph provided that's 16% of the population.

    I'd like that to be acknowledged. Really look at the problems a low IQ causes rather than pretend there's some sort of equality or it doesn't matter, everybody can cope.
    And also not class it as a disability rather that society/systems need to encompass those people just as much as anybody else.

    Grond0
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,872
    edited June 18
    Well my argument is deceptively simple.
    1. By definition the mean IQ is 100.
    2. Most things are designed for the average person.
    Therefore having less than 100 IQ is likely to cause trouble.

    Of course the lower you go the more problems you get (or the more obvious it gets).

    ThacoBellDev6
  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,641
    Exept the "avarage" IQ is not 100, but is a spectrum between 85 and 115.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,872
    O_Bruce said:

    Exept the "avarage" IQ is not 100, but is a spectrum between 85 and 115.

    That's just wrong. The mean cannot be a spectrum.

  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,641
    Perhaps I worded if wrongly. Intelligence between 85 and 115 is considered average. Normal. Something majority of human population is at. 100 is considered average, but even if you have less or more than that you'll most likely still be on that spectrum and therefore still be considered average/normal.

  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 599

    O_Bruce said:

    Exept the "avarage" IQ is not 100, but is a spectrum between 85 and 115.

    That's just wrong. The mean cannot be a spectrum.
    Some quick points:
    1. The mean does not really exist as it changes all the (by minute amounts) time. As a single numerical average it is only a useful fiction.
    2. If we include our uncertainty about where the mean currently is, we could see the range of credible values as a spectrum of possible means.
    3. The first two items are besides the point. What @O_Bruce is probably trying to express is that if you say a person is of average intelligence (or anything) it means that the person is close to the average, not that he has exactly the average intelligence.

    Grammarsalad
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,872
    O_Bruce said:

    Perhaps I worded if wrongly. Intelligence between 85 and 115 is considered average. Normal. Something majority of human population is at. 100 is considered average, but even if you have less or more than that you'll most likely still be on that spectrum and therefore still be considered average/normal.

    Yes, but the mean IQ is defined as 100 as I said. Therefore, if a system is designed so that it requires average intelligence or more, persons with less than 100 IQ will be challenged.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,872
    Ammar said:

    O_Bruce said:

    Exept the "avarage" IQ is not 100, but is a spectrum between 85 and 115.

    That's just wrong. The mean cannot be a spectrum.
    Some quick points:
    1. The mean does not really exist as it changes all the (by minute amounts) time. As a single numerical average it is only a useful fiction.
    2. If we include our uncertainty about where the mean currently is, we could see the range of credible values as a spectrum of possible means.
    3. The first two items are besides the point. What @O_Bruce is probably trying to express is that if you say a person is of average intelligence (or anything) it means that the person is close to the average, not that he has exactly the average intelligence.
    You've got it backwards. The IQ test is defined so that the mean is 100 and std is 15. Neither changes. I understand what he is trying to express. I feel like he doesn't understand what I am trying to express.

  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,641
    edited June 19

    Yes, but the mean IQ is defined as 100 as I said. Therefore, if a system is designed so that it requires average intelligence or more, persons with less than 100 IQ will be challenged.

    I'll be generous here and acknowledge 17%-18% of western population as being challenged, as you put it. That's still quite a minority, so it's not a surprise of the system being designed for the remaining 82%. It does make less intellgent people lives harder, I can admit that. That doesn't mean, however, that it is okay to twist the system to pander to minority, especially in undefinied way as for now I am failing to notice any practical ideas how that system can be changed.

    Instead of patronizing or pandering, I think its a better idea to have people who will help in elevating those people closer to avarege level. Even putting intelligence aside, there are many practical and soft skills that can be taught that will help pretty much anybody out to effectively funcion in modern society, labour market etc. But in order for any kind of education or training to work, there can't be any assertion that the trainee is incapable of learning or lack any cognitive resources.

    Straight up interllectual disabilities are the other story, however.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,872
    Actually per my argument up to 50 % of the population encounter varying levels of challenges IF we take the premises as true. I'm not saying they are necessarily true.

  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 599

    Ammar said:

    O_Bruce said:

    Exept the "avarage" IQ is not 100, but is a spectrum between 85 and 115.

    That's just wrong. The mean cannot be a spectrum.
    Some quick points:
    1. The mean does not really exist as it changes all the (by minute amounts) time. As a single numerical average it is only a useful fiction.
    2. If we include our uncertainty about where the mean currently is, we could see the range of credible values as a spectrum of possible means.
    3. The first two items are besides the point. What @O_Bruce is probably trying to express is that if you say a person is of average intelligence (or anything) it means that the person is close to the average, not that he has exactly the average intelligence.
    You've got it backwards. The IQ test is defined so that the mean is 100 and std is 15. Neither changes. I understand what he is trying to express. I feel like he doesn't understand what I am trying to express.
    A *theoretically perfect* IQ test is defined so that the mean is 100. *Actual* IQ test get calibrated so that the mean is as close as possible to 100, but any calibration is necessarily imperfect. And even if the calibration were perfect, it would need to be recalibrated all the time, as the human population does not stay constant.

    Grammarsalad
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,872
    You speak as though we are constantly testing the whole population.

  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 599

    You speak as though we are constantly testing the whole population.

    No. However, what I am pointing out that if you would do so, IQ would not stay constant.

    The basic idea behind this sort of calibration is that the average IQ in the target population (usually defined by age and other factors) will be 100 to make the test easier to interpret. What I am saying is 1) as researchers are only able to sample from the target population, they can do so only approximately (but very close) and 2) unless you also define the target population by the date on which you are doing the test, you will need to recalibrate every so often.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,872
    Yes, that's not wrong. It doesn't significantly affect the argument, though.

    Ammar
  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 759
    IQ shouldn't be overrated as a measure of competence. Such vital life skills as dealing with assholes, making up wedding seating plans, and planning a family vacation so all the children are satisfied are rarely covered.

    O_Bruce
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 599

    Yes, that's not wrong. It doesn't significantly affect the argument, though.

    Yes, agreed. There where just interesting technical asides, as you were also being technical. That is why I led my third point in the original post on the topic as "the first two items are beside the point". :)

    FinneousPJ
  • DragonKingDragonKing Member Posts: 1,267
    edited June 19

    O_Bruce said:

    1. Sure, biological factors matter. So do envoirmental ones.

    2. You said it. "Everyone CAN be intelligent". Just because they have possibility to turn out intelligent doesn't mean they will. Perhaps just saying envoirment is not precise enough, so I'll add this: by envoirmental factors you include not only potential possibilities, but also whether the subject will choose to use said possibilities. And while the effect might differ even if exposure and engagement is roughly the same, the biological factors are responsible for this.

    I think it is quite obvious who will turn out more cognitively capable: person who is mostly lazying around or who exposes himself/herself for different stimuli, seeks new knowledge, thinks about things a lot, analyze a lot, study and in general provides the mind a notalbe stimulation on daily basis.

    3. "Children forced to stay at school until they're 18". How terrible. I am truly shaking, especially since this remarks is clearly from emotions rather than logic.

    4. "Can you not see the link between further education for everybody and the idea that that's a way of promoting the enviromental factors of intelligence? Everybody get's degrees, therefore biology matters less."

    "Promoting"... Seriosuly, reality is a reality. It doesn't matter what you think or what you wish reallity to be. Briefly: there are studies showing improtance of biological factors (by correlaction of IQ of identical twins that were seperated, for example). There are studies showing importance of envoirmental factors (breeding multiple generation of rats in different envoirment, then observing the difference in result in few tasks). Since both factors showed some importance, it is only reasonable to conclude both factors matters.

    Please, stop this "promoting" nonsense. Science doesn't care what you think..


    Occupations and careers that were available to people without academic qualifications now advertise for graduates only. Entry level jobs restricted to graduates. University degrees devalued to the point where now employers don't consider applications from a lot of universities and they go straight in the bin.

    Nope. Nowadays people without notable education can still find a job, and many jobs that are requiring physical activity or very specific skills are becoming better and better paid. As for university graduates, due to sheer ammount of them it is only logical that you'll need a little more than your master degree to earn a good job. Instead of complaining, it is good idea to seek some advices how to get a job and not being rejected at the very start.

    Speaking about complaining. It sure is nice and easy, to complain about biology and ignore the fact that what you do with resources given to you affects you as well. It certainly helps you to avoid responsibility for your own life.
    Where you got the idea that I am complaining about biology heaven knows.
    I'd much, much rather there was far more attention shown towards raw IQ and an honest acknowledgement of what society needs to do about that rather than ineffectual social engineering.

    Wouldn't it be much fairer if it were acknowledged that some people are incapable of intellectual development and instead of disregarding their hopeless struggles, built systems where that didn't affect their worth.
    Paid them for their labour fairly because much of it is vital and important.

    Your post is rather an example of, "So what you're saying is"
    I only agree with this to the extent we are speaking on a individual level and not trying to expand this a racial group level. Which is already a problem with society right now as it is. This racial/political group think mentality that willfully or ignorantly will ignore individuality because it doesn't conform to what the group believes to be true.

    As well as it's also not used as a barrier to stop individuals who do continue to try or want try to developed intellectually.

  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 2,099

    O_Bruce said:

    1. Sure, biological factors matter. So do envoirmental ones.

    2. You said it. "Everyone CAN be intelligent". Just because they have possibility to turn out intelligent doesn't mean they will. Perhaps just saying envoirment is not precise enough, so I'll add this: by envoirmental factors you include not only potential possibilities, but also whether the subject will choose to use said possibilities. And while the effect might differ even if exposure and engagement is roughly the same, the biological factors are responsible for this.

    I think it is quite obvious who will turn out more cognitively capable: person who is mostly lazying around or who exposes himself/herself for different stimuli, seeks new knowledge, thinks about things a lot, analyze a lot, study and in general provides the mind a notalbe stimulation on daily basis.

    3. "Children forced to stay at school until they're 18". How terrible. I am truly shaking, especially since this remarks is clearly from emotions rather than logic.

    4. "Can you not see the link between further education for everybody and the idea that that's a way of promoting the enviromental factors of intelligence? Everybody get's degrees, therefore biology matters less."

    "Promoting"... Seriosuly, reality is a reality. It doesn't matter what you think or what you wish reallity to be. Briefly: there are studies showing improtance of biological factors (by correlaction of IQ of identical twins that were seperated, for example). There are studies showing importance of envoirmental factors (breeding multiple generation of rats in different envoirment, then observing the difference in result in few tasks). Since both factors showed some importance, it is only reasonable to conclude both factors matters.

    Please, stop this "promoting" nonsense. Science doesn't care what you think..


    Occupations and careers that were available to people without academic qualifications now advertise for graduates only. Entry level jobs restricted to graduates. University degrees devalued to the point where now employers don't consider applications from a lot of universities and they go straight in the bin.

    Nope. Nowadays people without notable education can still find a job, and many jobs that are requiring physical activity or very specific skills are becoming better and better paid. As for university graduates, due to sheer ammount of them it is only logical that you'll need a little more than your master degree to earn a good job. Instead of complaining, it is good idea to seek some advices how to get a job and not being rejected at the very start.

    Speaking about complaining. It sure is nice and easy, to complain about biology and ignore the fact that what you do with resources given to you affects you as well. It certainly helps you to avoid responsibility for your own life.
    Where you got the idea that I am complaining about biology heaven knows.
    I'd much, much rather there was far more attention shown towards raw IQ and an honest acknowledgement of what society needs to do about that rather than ineffectual social engineering.

    Wouldn't it be much fairer if it were acknowledged that some people are incapable of intellectual development and instead of disregarding their hopeless struggles, built systems where that didn't affect their worth.
    Paid them for their labour fairly because much of it is vital and important.

    Your post is rather an example of, "So what you're saying is"
    I only agree with this to the extent we are speaking on a individual level and not trying to expand this a racial group level. Which is already a problem with society right now as it is. This racial/political group think mentality that willfully or ignorantly will ignore individuality because it doesn't conform to what the group believes to be true.

    As well as it's also not used as a barrier to stop individuals who do continue to try or want try to developed intellectually.

    That goes without saying.

    I think what I'm getting at is something like this.

    In the past, life was somewhat simpler. People worked near home, toiled in the fields, most were illiterate, ect. ect.
    And let me state this clearly, IT WAS NOT BETTER, before everybody jumps because they want to jump rather than think.
    But, there was some measure of everybody managing to cope because the systems people had to deal with were simpler and there were far less choices.

    As society has become more complex, more choices, more systems to navigate, more bureaucracy, more competition, ect. ect. I think there are a substantial number of people being left behind because they cannot cope with the complexity.

    And that should be considered and managed(?), encorporated(?) rather than them being written of as "losers" because they can't cope as well as others probably through no fault of their own.

    ThacoBellWarChiefZeke
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 1,190
    O_Bruce said:

    Intelligence depends on two main factors: inherently biological and also environmental. Both are important, but the implications of the second factor are much more interesting: intelligence can be developed.

    I feel like I should point out I.Q is something that is very heritable. Adult I.Q is agreed upon by experts to be around 60-80% genetic. So while intelligence can be developed and enhanced, at least half of your abiltiies depend on genetics, if not a substantial portion.

    You can just google "heritability of I.Q" to find all sorts of references attesting to this fact.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/neu.10160

    semiticgod
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 599
    edited June 19

    O_Bruce said:

    Intelligence depends on two main factors: inherently biological and also environmental. Both are important, but the implications of the second factor are much more interesting: intelligence can be developed.

    I feel like I should point out I.Q is something that is very heritable. Adult I.Q is agreed upon by experts to be around 60-80% genetic. So while intelligence can be developed and enhanced, at least half of your abiltiies depend on genetics, if not a substantial portion.

    You can just google "heritability of I.Q" to find all sorts of references attesting to this fact.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/neu.10160
    You overstate it a bit. 80% is really at the upper end of the estimates, and the credible range is usually given with a lower limit of 40%, not 60%. There is also a fair bit of reasonable criticism of the methods employed (if you check the standard literature is usually by the same fairly small set of scientist, which has large overlap with the signatories of the "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" statement).

    Anyway, a more important consideration, translating that to


    So while intelligence can be developed and enhanced, at least half of your abiltiies depend on genetics, if not a substantial portion.

    is a fallacious conclusion. Heritability as used in those studies is defined as the explained variation in a study group. You can't define it independently of a study group, and definitely not on an individual level.

    To explain why, consider this: heritability is the ratio of variance due to genetic difference to the total variance in the study group. But total variance depends on how homogenous the study group is. To get away from the minefield that is IQ, let's look at height for a moment.

    If you have a fairly homongenous middle class group then the heritability in that group will be higher than if you consider a group that also contains people who suffered malnutrition in their youth, which is known to affect height. This is an explanation why the heritability of height in Asia and Africa is lower than in Australia, the EU and the US.

    This also seems to bear out with intelligence. The reported heritability increases with social class. Seems reasonable, as the upper class probably has a more consistent environment, decreasing total variability in their group compared to lower class people.

    The above part was mostly about the denominator in the definition of heritability, but similar issues can arise with the nominator. For genes to be able to explain variance in IQ, you need to have variance in the genes of your study group.

    To give an imaginated example that serves only to illustrate the issue, if you would look at a study group of perfect clones the heritability will be zero, because there is no variance in the genes. It is hard to tell how this impacts these studies. You could argue that these study group are often more genetically homogenous than the world population, which is certainly true. OTH one of the studies you cited discarded one sample if two of them were too similar to each other (to avoid having close relatives), which would inflate the genetic variance in the study group, compared to the general population (though that would need to be defined as well).

    The tldr; for this is that stating heritability as a percentage only makes sense within a specific study group, and certainly not on an individual level.

    Grond0Grammarsalad
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 1,190
    edited June 22

    FWIW

    Gonna quote part of this video real quick: ""Making people make a cake for a gay wedding.

    Making them do it? I don't think that's a very good idea.

    Here's the argument. Should they be able to deny making a cake for a black couple if they don't like black people?

    Allowed to? Probably. That doesn't mean it's right.

    Okay, so we had the Civil Rights movement, where they said, black people, we had to serve them in your restaurants and stuff like that, and it did work, and it did make our society better.

    Yeah.

    But you still argue that wasn't right?

    No, that was right.

    Why is that different to now, if you didn't want to make a cake for black people?

    Maybe it's not. Maybe it's not different. Maybe I was wrong about that.""

    I'm amazed he never heard that basic counter argument to his position. I think he's right, mind, but seeing him unable to defend himself from a common argument doesn't have a good look.

    FinneousPJThacoBell
  • DragonKingDragonKing Member Posts: 1,267
    edited June 24

    FWIW

    Gonna quote part of this video real quick: ""Making people make a cake for a gay wedding.

    Making them do it? I don't think that's a very good idea.

    Here's the argument. Should they be able to deny making a cake for a black couple if they don't like black people?

    Allowed to? Probably. That doesn't mean it's right.

    Okay, so we had the Civil Rights movement, where they said, black people, we had to serve them in your restaurants and stuff like that, and it did work, and it did make our society better.

    Yeah.

    But you still argue that wasn't right?

    No, that was right.

    Why is that different to now, if you didn't want to make a cake for black people?

    Maybe it's not. Maybe it's not different. Maybe I was wrong about that.""

    I'm amazed he never heard that basic counter argument to his position. I think he's right, mind, but seeing him unable to defend himself from a common argument doesn't have a good look.
    And I'd argue that there was a significant difference. That was an entire nation that wrote whole laws discriminating against a group of people who couldn't even hide or assimilate into the dominate culture even if they wanted too. And that discrimination also had a effect on the economy because it actually hindered things like black businessmen from work when they couldn't even find locations to sleep or find food compared to now where the reverse is true.

    Yes I would let business discriminate, show their own prejudice because in this age that is literally a disastrous business action as not only would it cause more people to no longer support them it would bring a lot of negative coverage. To smaller and more independent business this would literally be suicide which would literally be the ones that mostly would take this action anyways.

    Post edited by DragonKing on
    WarChiefZekeThacoBellBalrog99UnderstandMouseMagic
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,273
    edited July 9

    FWIW

    Gonna quote part of this video real quick: ""Making people make a cake for a gay wedding.

    Making them do it? I don't think that's a very good idea.

    Here's the argument. Should they be able to deny making a cake for a black couple if they don't like black people?

    Allowed to? Probably. That doesn't mean it's right.

    Okay, so we had the Civil Rights movement, where they said, black people, we had to serve them in your restaurants and stuff like that, and it did work, and it did make our society better.

    Yeah.

    But you still argue that wasn't right?

    No, that was right.

    Why is that different to now, if you didn't want to make a cake for black people?

    Maybe it's not. Maybe it's not different. Maybe I was wrong about that.""

    I'm amazed he never heard that basic counter argument to his position. I think he's right, mind, but seeing him unable to defend himself from a common argument doesn't have a good look.
    Heh, while I agree that it's strange that he had apparently never heard that counterargument-- and I'd go farther and suggest that he should have thought of it himself-- I appreciate that he admitted publicly that he could be wrong. That's not a small thing. How often do you encounter persons willing to be convinced that they are wrong about anything?

    Also, I'm wondering about the comment comparing the 'crisis of young men' to the death of God. The death of God signifies a fundamental breakdown of values, a place where nihilism looks. Heh, I chuckled, but perhaps we--or is it just me?--are the sophisticates laughing at the madman, blind to our own loss of values(?)

    I'm more of a Kant man, myself. Copernicus took the first shot, but he used buckshot and caught both God and man. Kant cast raise dead**, but he only had one spell left, and so he cast it on man.

    Let's see, I'm wondering why nobody has mentioned that we can say things like, "I don't know their gender" (say, if you are the investigator, and all you know is that the serial killer is working alone***). And, why hasn't anybody brought up the Flynn effect*? Isn't it weird how the raw scores have gone up so precipitously in such a short time (though, I'm really happy to read ammar's post on, what, the 19th(?) 60%! I was like, jeeze, read Nisbett (or the aforementioned Flynn).

    Anyway, I'm going to put "admitting that he could be wrong" in the "plus" category

    *edit: we should also talk about how g is itself potentially problematic, considering that it is a mathematical construct. We should never forget about things like murder rates and icecream sales

    **edit2: yo might be asking, who granted him the spell in the first place? Ha! Trick question. It was the Categorical Imperative

    ***Edit3: the English language is much less forgiving about time. Try saying that you will go/are going/did go to somebody's house without specifying when (past present or future) you did/are/will go without using an awkward sentence like this one

    Post edited by Grammarsalad on
    semiticgodThacoBell
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,273
    edited July 15

    This got me curious, so I looked it up. There is a video, apparently, but I prefer to read, so I found this:

    https://amp-reddit-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/8w9hw1/atheists_are_murderers_debunked_debunked_a/?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQECAEoAQ==

    Okay. I like that Peterson is getting the kids to think about philosophy. That's really great, but this kid needs to do a bit more work. First of all, a given metaethical system doesn't necessarily involve an ontology. For example, Korsgaard likens the formulation of Maxims to the operation of a (mathematics-like) procedure that can give objective answers to certain questions without presupposing an ontology. And it is problematic to equate "unprovable" to "supernatural".

    This seems to be a blow against the "New atheists", which is fine, but that is low hanging fruit. Worse, those guys are like trump in that you can't seriously address them without getting dirty.

    Further, while there is precedence for sourcing deontology in supernaturalism (even if that is committing a genetic fallacy), but you need to do more work to show that all deontology theories-- again, see Korsgaard, and supplement with Kant's synthetic a priori--all utilitarian theories, and all virtue theories are inexorably tied to supernaturalism and rely on "unprovable" foundations. I mean, this is almost certainly a false premise so anything follows. I can literally prove it:

    1) A (A is false--i.e. -A Is true)
    2) A or B (addition--B is whatever you want it to be)
    3) -A (-A is true)
    ______
    4) B from 2 and 3, disjunctive syllogism

    I'm not being terribly fair. All of the great philosophers start from the premise that everybody else is hopelessly confused. But, these are errors that you're only allowed to commit if you have the Letters.

    So, what I'm saying us that it's good to see that the Petersononians are actually doing some thinking. If he just accomplishes that, then good (as long as they actually listen to counterarguments, as Peterson himself seems to do). My hope is that they-- here I include Peterson-- eventually take the time to actually learn about the biology of sex, and understand that the point is that gender is necessarily separable from the biological sex, that there is clearly a social component to gender, and that the evidence does not, ' speak for itself', but rather needs to be interpreted. I mean, they supposedly love Nietzsche, right?

    Anyway, I'm bored now, so I won't go any further

    Post edited by Grammarsalad on
    FinneousPJMantis37
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    Has anyone challenged Peterson on the confirmation bias of him ever being on position of any authority?

    Plausibly he is just a moderately nice looking white dude of perfectly average mediocrity - and check your confirmation bias if you disliked this.

    I do meanwhile dislike the "buzz" around mediocre men, for just the sake of them being one.


  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    In case you dislike the above, just do tell me what interesting things Peterson, the plausibly mediocre man, might have said to make him less than mediocre and confirmation biased?

Sign In or Register to comment.