[Politics] Jordan Peterson

[Mr Banana]

I've seen a bit of him. He often says things like "the evidence clearly shows" (without giving specifics) a, b or c - and his supporters lap it up because they don't know any better and assume he knows what he's taking about - but when you go a bit deeper and look into what he has actually said, his evidence is often debatable, misinterpreted or outright wrong. I can see his appeal to certain groups, but I think I'd class him as a slightly more reasonable and a more well read version of Lauren Southern. He's got some interesting points to make, but he's not this super-intellectual who somehow 'schools everyone' that he's made out to be.

Right on, sir.

I worry more, as others much more intelligent than me have said, about him enabling this horrible version of masculinity and hard-headedness that is less needed than ever in a broadly divided and aggressively argumentative world right now.

From a nerdy point of view, glad that academic voices are (occasionally) being heard on a massive scale, though.

 

[dingodan]

Why did he choose the lobster though? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...econsider-the-lobster/?utm_term=.ba218cdddfb5

First the article accepts that what he says about the lobster is correct.

The argument that he might be misusing the example is presented like this:

"If the common ancestor of humans and lobsters (she's talking about acoels) lacked dominance hierarchies (which seems likely, based on what we know about living animals), then our two species’ social behavior evolved independently, and the one can’t inform us about the other."

This is actually to misunderstand the point he was making. It was a really simple point. Social constructionists say, "Hierarchies are human social constructs" (and so in some sense this argument extends into the socio-political idea that hierarchies are unnatural, a product of flawed human psychology alone, and so, potentially, can and should be rejected) .

Lobsters prove that, no, hierarchies aren't a human social construction, because they are not limited to Human Beings. You only require one example in nature to prove this and the Lobster suffices. Other ancestors or common ancestors not having hierarchies doesn't matter. One example is all you need to prove the point.

Hierarchies are an evolutionary adaptation, they are not a social construction. That's it, that's the argument in a nutshell.

 

[seagulls4ever]

He never actually say you cannot stop smoking without a mystical experience (although he said "not really", which I accept is quite close to saying that), when he elaborated he said there "aren't really any reliable chemical means" of doing so, which I think is pretty on point.

I had a quick look at the study, there are other studies into this and plenty of articles, so it's quite possible he was taking into account more data than that of the study you linked to, but even that study statistically significantly correlates cessation not simply with the use of Psilocybin but the level of self reported mystical experience, that's important. It explains why he would say "it's not evidence for mushrooms doing the job", because these results suggest that the cessation not the direct result of a pharmacological intervention, but rather an indirect result of pharmacological intervention and a direct result of mystical experience induced by it.

Which is what he basically says here: ""The psilocybin doesn't directly have an impact on the smoking behaviour, it has to elicit what's described subjectively as a mystical experience, and you can get physiological indicators of that mystical experience".

Also when goes on to say that you can get physiological indicators of a mystical experience, he doesn't mean in relation to this study, he means in general. If you measure physiological response (for example galvanic skin response) during a self reported mystical experience you can observe statistically significant changes in physiology during those experiences. This is quite well known, and I'm not (he I'm sure he's not) saying that this proves anything supernatural, it just proves that an experience is being had, it can (and will) be entirely subjective, the point is that you can measure it and verify whether an experience is being had, or not. So for the purposes of studies into this you can pin down the experience with more than just self reporting measures (although as you say, the study you linked to seems to rely on self reporting measures and doesn't verify any physiological change).

On the "There's no need to prove it was a mystical experience" point, my interpretation of what he is saying is more like this: Whether it was or wasn't something real (really supernatural) is irrelevant, the fact that it is subjectively experiences is sufficient, since we aren't trying to prove the existence of the supernatural, we are trying to prove the effectiveness of a subjective mystical experience. At least that is my interpretation of that part. - Infact having listened a little further he goes on to explain that this is what he was saying.

When you say "Perhaps it's about having a profound experience?", I think that sums up what he is talking about, just a particular kind of profound experience, but it's the having of the experience, he certainly isn't saying, for example, that God or something supernatural intervenes to help a smoker quit. He is a clinical psychologist, so the core of his explanations for most things you would expect to be human psychology, and from what I have heard from him that seems to be the case.

But things become complicated when you incorporate, for example, a consideration of human psychology with an consideration of theology or mysticism for example. Because when you look at the relationship between these things it becomes impossible to untangle and seperate them in ways which are satisfactory (expecially to an objectivist). Look at the work of Carl Jung for example, if someone came accross some of the works of Jung for the first time they could easily be forgiven for assuming he was a priest or a mystic rather than a scientist, his area of interest was never really the mystical though, it was the human being.

By the way thanks for posting that discussion, I haven't seen it and it looks really interesting, I'll definately give it a watch.

The fact that you are having to try and fit what he says around what you think he means demonstrates some of the points I was making. This is one of the criticisms of him - he's sometimes very vague and it allows what he says to be interpreted in different ways.

There simply isn't the evidence to say what he does in such absolute terms. The way he has expressed himself is bad science. Please link any other studies involving psilocybin and smoking cessation (and mystical experiences) - a brief search did not allow me to find any. 15 subjects in an open-label trial is no where near enough for statistical significance. The way he talked about the evidence based on an open-label trial is not how scientists would normally talk about such evidence. It's tabloid style reporting, "New Drug could Halt Alzheimer's" - then you read the drug hasn't even progressed to clinical trials yet (and probably won't), it's just had some sort of impact in the rodent model of Alzheimer's.

He does this all the time. It's not an isolated example. The problem is he talks in such absolutes, which then shuts down the person he's attempting to debate, saying things like "the evidence clearly shows", when that's often not the case. You even see one of his followers on his thread saying "he speaks in facts they can't handle", which is one of the reasons why he has such a cult following.

 

[dingodan]

The fact that you are having to try and fit what he says around what you think he means demonstrates some of the points I was making. This is one of the criticisms of him - he's sometimes very vague and it allows what he says to be interpreted in different ways.

There simply isn't the evidence to say what he does in such absolute terms. The way he has expressed himself is bad science. Please link any other studies involving psilocybin and smoking cessation (and mystical experiences) - a brief search did not allow me to find any. 15 subjects in an open-label trial is no where near enough for statistical significance. The way he talked about the evidence based on an open-label trial is not how scientists would normally talk about such evidence. It's tabloid style reporting, "New Drug could Halt Alzheimer's" - then you read the drug hasn't even progressed to clinical trials yet (and probably won't), it's just had some sort of impact in the rodent model of Alzheimer's.

He does this all the time. It's not an isolated example. The problem is he talks in such absolutes, which then shuts down the person he's attempting to debate, saying things like "the evidence clearly shows", when that's often not the case. You even see one of his followers on his thread saying "he speaks in facts they can't handle", which is one of the reasons why he has such a cult following.

My search was for psilocybin smoking cessation, I missed out mystical sorry. By the way "15 subjects in an open-label trial is no where near enough for statistical significance." is hardly a scientific statement is it. The results were statistically significant, sorry. Yes it's a small study, some studies are. Bigger studies are better but small ones aren't invalid. The fact it was open-label isn't really relevant, and I don't see how you could ethically administer psilocybin blind.

He said a) there is no reliable chemical way to quit smoking, and b) a psilocybin induced subjective mystical experience helps people to quit smoking with a significantly greater degree of success. Well both those things are true, and on that basis you could well say that if you want to quit smoking, which is something really bloody hard, then you want to have a mystical experience, which is basically what he said.

The point he was probably trying to make (I haven't watched the talk from start to finish) was that meaningful psychological experiences are a better predictor of (and means to) making positive changes in your life, than mere pharmacological intervention.

I don't agree with you that he is vague, or that he talks in tabloid headlines (those are kind of contradictory) or that he doesn't back up everything he says with sound evidence.

You say "He does this all the time", well he didn't do it this time, I mean in this example, he made claim, and you found a study supporting it, so what's next?

Do you have any example of where he has said "the evidence clealy shows" where that has not been the case? You said it happens often so I guess you have plenty of examples to pick from.

 

[dingodan]

He actually argues for the neccessity of (and in defence of) the left here:

 

[seagulls4ever]

My search was for psilocybin smoking cessation, I missed out mystical sorry. By the way "15 subjects in an open-label trial is no where near enough for statistical significance." is hardly a scientific statement is it. The results were statistically significant, sorry. Yes it's a small study, some studies are. Bigger studies are better but small ones aren't invalid. The fact it was open-label isn't really relevant, and I don't see how you could ethically administer psilocybin blind.

He said a) there is no reliable chemical way to quit smoking, and b) a psilocybin induced subjective mystical experience helps people to quit smoking with a significantly greater degree of success. Well both those things are true, and on that basis you could well say that if you want to quit smoking, which is something really bloody hard, then you want to have a mystical experience, which is basically what he said.

The point he was probably trying to make (I haven't watched the talk from start to finish) was that meaningful psychological experiences are a better predictor of (and means to) making positive changes in your life, than mere pharmacological intervention.

I don't agree with you that he is vague, or that he talks in tabloid headlines (those are kind of contradictory) or that he doesn't back up everything he says with sound evidence.

You say "He does this all the time", well he didn't do it this time, I mean in this example, he made claim, and you found a study supporting it, so what's next?

Do you have any example of where he has said "the evidence clealy shows" where that has not been the case? You said it happens often so I guess you have plenty of examples to pick from.

I couldn't find any other articles on psilocybin smoking cessation either, please link those. Even if they haven't checked for mystical experiences, I don't think it matters - ultimately we want to know whether psilocybin is effective, regardless of mystical experiences. One open-label trial with a small sample size cannot tell us that.

With such a small sample size, in an open-label trial, the results cannot be generalised to the population as a whole. Really, you need a group by which to compare the results against. Then, the results need to be reproducible, preferably by different researchers. I didn't say the results are invalid, but they certainly need to be treated with caution, and a single open-label trial such as this doesn't have a lot of weight behind it. It should be used as the foundation for more rigorous trials. It's entirely relevant that the study wasn't of double blind placebo controlled style, where both the researchers and the subjects are blind to who is receiving the psilocybin. Researcher influence and placebo effects are very real, which is why you have these study designs. Drugs don't get approved for clinical use without such designs. It's not going to affect ethics - people will know they will either receive the drug or not, but of course it's going to be more tricky with a drug that has such powerful effects. Here's an upcoming double-blind placebo-controlled trial for the efficacy of psilocybin in OCD: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03356483

He said you can't really stop smoking without any supernatural intervention. That's wrong. He then said there aren't really any reliable means for inducing smoking cessation. That's debatable - they work for a lot of people, which is why they are licensed. He said with one treatment (wrong, it was 2/3, it doesn't really matter but he did emphasise it) of psilocybin people have about an 85% of smoking cessation with one treatment - close enough, but it reduced to around 60% at long-term follow up, and it was combined with cognitive behavioural therapy (which he didn't mention), which is an influencer. So placebo + CBT could have produced the results. Aside from the small sample size, we don't know anything about the characteristics of the individuals in this small sample. He says it doesn't work if you don't have the mystical experience, but it's wrong to say that because not everyone in the study who stopped smoking had a mystical experience, and we don't know what would have happened to those who did have a mystical experience if they did not (so you might want a much larger trial comparing those who do and do not report mystical experiences, and then you might say there's a greater chance of smoking cessation if you also have a mystical experience, depending on results). So it's flawed. He does later say the combination makes it more likely to quit smoking, which is somewhat contradictory to what he earlier said, albeit more accurate even though it's irresponsible to say it in such absolute terms with limited data. It really isn't good practice to reference such a flawed (albeit interesting) study in the way that he did - he makes out as though what he says is the scientific consensus, which is far from the truth. He articulates himself very well which gives the impression to people that he knows absolutely what he's talking about. He leaves out information that doesn't fit his agenda.

You should be able to see that there's a clear lack of accuracy in what he's saying. I can tell you like him, but that's just the reality of it. Of course there's a study supporting his claim - there always is in these kind of examples as he references specific evidence - it's how he interprets that evidence to suit himself that's the problem. As I originally said, he often cites evidence that is debatable, misinterpreted or outright wrong - he did that here. It's subtle, but that's what makes it dangerous because his supporters lap it up as if he is speaking the irrefutable truth, backed up by hard facts. So yes, he does this sort of thing all the time, and here's a clear example of it. You disagree, no problem.

I've already spent a bit of time on one example for you where he's misrepresented evidence (which you don't agree with). You can Google others (type in 'jordan paterson wrong' or something) - there's loads of articles on that sort of thing. Or just listen to something he says, and then go and fact-check it yourself (unfortunately this can take quite a bit of time if you want to do a good job). He's an interesting guy, and I like to listen to all sorts of different people, but unfortunately he's become a cult who is right about everything and owns everyone among his supporters, and that needs to be challenged, because I think it's dangerous.

 

[seagulls4ever]

Just found the r/enoughpetersonspam Reddit, and there's lots of threads where people are pointing out similar examples:

https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpete...ont_get_caught_in_jordan_peterson_lies_about/

r/askphilosophy are also calling him out for not understanding what he's talking about, I liked this post:

The most basic answer to your title question is just this: because he hasn't read the stuff he's criticizing. His training is not in philosophy, though he might well have taken a class here or there. But when he talks about Marxism or post-modernism, it's readily apparent he simply hasn't read original sources. Instead, he's parroting common-place dismissals, and he's managed to trick of bunch of people who've read even less that he knows what he's talking about.

The only thing interesting about the Jordan Peterson phenomenon is that is shows that bubbling beneath the anti-intellectualism of the far right, there's a craving to have academics they can call their own. But what they want from their academics is not actual instruction. They just want to be validated in their intellectual indolence.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphiloso..._are_jordan_petersons_philosophical_opinions/

 

[seagulls4ever]

[tweet]997575537089564672[/tweet]

 

[dingodan]

Just found the r/enoughpetersonspam Reddit, and there's lots of threads where people are pointing out similar examples:

https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpete...ont_get_caught_in_jordan_peterson_lies_about/

r/askphilosophy are also calling him out for not understanding what he's talking about, I liked this post:



https://www.reddit.com/r/askphiloso..._are_jordan_petersons_philosophical_opinions/

Ok well that choice of quote which you apparently liked is pretty illuminating about where you are coming from.It is in no way any kind of valid intellectual criticism. It is simply an argument that Peterson doesn't understand Marxism, (the very common Marxist argument that people who criticize Marxism simply don't understand it). Also that Peterson is "Far Right", and that the people who Peterson appeals to are indolent (far) right wingers, who have been tricked by him. That quote says more about you and it's author than it does about Peterson.

If this is a statement that you like then there is no point trying to have a balanced conversation with you.

For a far right wing psudo intellectual who lies about Marxism and appeals to the indolent I'm surprised you picked his thougths on psilocybin and a means of quiting smoking as the big controversy to be criticized.