What's your opinions on Jordan Peterson?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

StatusNil:

Yeah, but I glossed over it as part of "coming up with the rules" for the sake of brevity. It's an individualist view that posits the priority of individual moral reasoning, obviously derived in part from interpersonal experience. It goes with his whole thing of "cleaning your room" before attempting to change the world. Nothing arbitrary about that, nor solipsistic.

That doesn't change the fact that isn't what you wrote. And no, what he wrote wasn't positing this either. Otherwise he wouldn't be positing then to arbitrarily separate intrapsychic conflict.

The individual, once capable of coherently integrating competing motivational demands in the private sphere, nonetheless remains destined for conflict with the other, in the course of the inevitable transformations of personal experience. This means that the person who has come to terms with him - or herself - at least in principle - is still subject to the affective dysregulation inevitably produced by interpersonal interaction.

Combined with his religiosity and appeals to it elsewhere, it's like if Nietzsche wroteself-help books and forgot to tell people to destroy the capitalist marketplace (because that's what Nietzsche told people to do).

He's all over the shop.

Peterson is quite specifically a person with a very messy room. The sad thing is his self-help book that is a self-"help" book in all but name will only be really entertained by frustrated people who need real help. But instead of confronting their frustrated and anti-social natures told to treat people like garbage because lobsters do so (pseudoscience is dangerous, yo).

It's sad ...and pitiable ... and honestly won't end well.

And what's so "profoundly stupid" about "spiritual alignment to assist personal agency"?

This...

What, that? Seems perfectly straightforward: you do stuff, and that gives you an idea of how to do stuff. But then, what is the right thing to do in a given situation? You need to make up rules about that. But other people are going to disagree, and that's too bad.

You could say that about anything.

"Hi, I'm going to murder this person. Other people might disagree, and that's too bad."

Not for the lack of trying. Just today, he posted another article likening him to, well, Hitler. It's a recurring theme, remember that Lindsey Shepherd inquisition? Yeah, cos he's totally gonna genocide those "IDW" pals of his, Dave Rubin (who is touring with him at the moment), Ben Shapiro, Christina Hoff Sommers, those Weinstein brothers... truly an audacious display of anti-semitism.

I don't care about any of these people, and neither should he. I've had Christians tell me I was going to Hell for being trans. I'm critiquing Peterson on shit he says and writes.

I think the people who made up an idiotic, metaphysically incongruent ideology like postmodern neo-Marxism are even more to blame for that one.

I'm more likely going to blame the people that uses it and pushes it asifit makes sense. I'm not going to blame people that no longer do so.

Mildly eccentric. There are degrees to things, remember? And let's see your book first before we decide its merits.

Why? My ethical compass would tell me not to invent and popularize made up buzzterms for my critics, and actually articulate my arguments to an honest critique of reality (assumed or otherwise). Not peddle garbage. Unfortunately for me, I'm not going to be the next Foucault or Butler... but a part of me also doesn't want to be the next Peterson. Rgardless of how much money people might throw at me.

Ethics is a bitch like that.

Might get into textbook writing, but that's a few decades from now and a hard gig to land.

aegix drakan:

You don't even need to assume it.

In an earlier post in the thread, I pointed out an instance where he was caught on camera arguing that without religion we love "Art and poetry and narrative and morality". :s

Ehh, I can sort of empathize but not for the same reasons (and certainly not because of religion itself). But then it's a bit rich for him to then turn around and pretend like the postmodernists are destroying academia. How he reads is like Nietzsche without the wit, the metaphysical congruency, the vocabulary...

It's pseudoscientific pop psychology mixed with irrationalism, all while trying to appeal to people like Hegel. If idiots are willing to throw millions at him, it's no skin off my back. In the same way people throw millions of dollars at evangelicals telling their ministry how they need a learjet.

It's like if Nietzsche wrote 80s era self-help books and just as flawed. Kind of like how Alcoholics Anonymous branded 'therapy' was based on telling people they need to search out some infallible concept of faith. Religious people will believe quite literally anything, so maybe a Peterson might at least make them interested in picking up more credible writers.

If they don't then it's no different than people waving Bibles like always.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

It's pseudoscientific pop psychology mixed with irrationalism, all while trying to appeal to people like Hegel.

Look, I haven't even read either of his books, and I have no immediate plans to. Not that I'm opposed to them, it's just that I have other things I'm more interested in. So I can't really comment on the quality of his prose, but even I know that the books are very different propositions. The first one was something he struggled with for years, trying to come to some coherent statement. And the second one is something he assembled quickly from pop stuff he had accumulated over time, posted online in bits and pieces, whatever. Probably because he was really going out on a limb in regards to his academic career and wanted to have something to fall back on. Sure, he's made a ton of money on Patreon, but none of that was ever a secure income for one moment.

Beyond that, you think he's making up buzz terms, while I'm sure he's sincere about his concern with postmodernists, neo-Marxists, SJWs, whatever you call them. Nothing much there to discuss further. One thing I don't get though, Hegel? Where do you get Hegel from? Nietzsche obviously, he's a vocal fanboi. But Hegel, to my limited knowledge, was all about progress, the evolving geist. It's not something I get from Peterson at all.

StatusNil:
Look, I haven't even read either of his books, and I have no immediate plans to.

I read most of one. It's garbage. If you want a self-help book, save your money for professional counselling.

Beyond that, you think he's making up buzz terms, while I'm sure he's sincere about his concern with postmodernists, neo-Marxists, SJWs, whatever you call them.

He literally uses that term (and its various combinations). And honestly, if he was truly sincere about 'postmodern neo-Marxists', or 'neo-Marxist Postmodernism', then he truly is confused. Here's me just assuming he's just trying to make a buck.

Nothing much there to discuss further. One thing I don't get though, Hegel? Where do you get Hegel from? Nietzsche obviously, he's a vocal fanboi. But Hegel, to my limited knowledge, was all about progress, the evolving geist. It's not something I get from Peterson at all.

Because Peterson's words echoes the relativistic nihilism that Nietzsche described. Moreover some of his writings simulate this artificial conflict of as if atomized facts and a disparate, yet transcendent world of meaning. Of which he seems to have transposed into a dialectic of its own from numerous passages, and for what he describes as the tension of chaos and order. Despite being such a Nietzschean fanboi, he seems to have skipped Nietzsche's calls to destroy the marketplace and to cease fabricating higher virtues ...and in place drones on about Christian mysticism (Western rhetoric and mysticism, naturally) as if to provide higher purpose. As if to help assist personal agency and to shore up against his intrapsychic conflict.

He misappropriates postmodern thought into this false metanarrative of its own dialetical materialism, despite postmodernism being postmodernism.

This is why he reduces all opposition to his rhetoric with such a fucking ludicrous buzzterm ... because it's much easier to pretend anyone that vaguely tells him his message is garbage and that his comparison to lobsters ignores biochemistry, neuroscience, and neuroplasticity belong to some unified, false hegemony.

You know what the funny thing is? That even if he were right that wouldn't excuse him acting or espousing the rhetoric he does. Because we actually have proof our social environment changes our brains, which is the whole basis idea behind creating a fairer society as to improve overall liberty, self-expression, and self-authenticity. As well as maximise personal agency, increase total achievement of its membership, and increase happiness.

So even if he were right, that would then stress the necessity for greater acceptance, social mobility, and improved social welfare.

But that's not what will sell books. Appealing to Christian mysticism, and appealing to people's worst natures will.

bastardofmelbourne:
But reading the excerpts...look, I just find it really funny that Peterson focuses so much time on how postmodernists are trying to take over the world with obfuscatory pseudo-academic garbage when his own work includes this kind of nonsense:

What the fuck does that mean??? I translate dense jurisprudence for a living, and I can't dissect that paragraph. It gives my brain indigestion. I know I'm not dumb; is there a secret psychologist jargon that I need to learn before it starts making sense?

I believe he's explaining fairly concepts of cognitive dissonance with relation to morality... just not in a very accessible way.

It seems to be taking the idea of goal-orientated behaviour as a basis for morality. Humans learn (moral) processes appropriate to accomplish certain goals. However, humans find they need to accomplish goals where (moral) processes learnt from previous goals may clash. Therefore, each individual must assess the pros and cons of previously learnt (moral) processes when they clash, with the individual re-evaluating their moral beliefs where necessary. A complication is that this is not just an entirely internal sense of morality within that individual. There may also be a clash of the morality of the individual with other individuals. As some tasks need the co-operation of others, if the individual has failed to incorporate the morality of others into how they approach a co-operative task, they have made an error.

That what it seems to me, anyway.

StatusNil:

aegix drakan:

In an earlier post in the thread, I pointed out an instance where he was caught on camera arguing that without religion we love "Art and poetry and narrative and morality". :s

Since I'm here, I think the question is "So?"

Is he trying to force a theocracy on you? Or anyone? If anything, his view of religion seems kind of instrumental to me.

Also, are you sure that's an accurate quote? Because it sure doesn't sound like something he would say. "without religion, we love art and poetry... " Dude is into religion AND art, poetry etc. What he does suggest is that ideology tends to substitute for religion for lots of people. So they are religious about their ideology. Which he thinks is bad. Mmmkay?

Goddammit I meant he said "lose art and poetry" not "love". x_x This'll teach me to spellcheck my stuff before hitting Post.

I can't find the original video of him, but the relevant part is shown at 1:42 of this video.

And here's the thing, a statement like "Without religion, you have no art/poetry/morality and if you have any of those, you're actually religious even if you say you're not" is just plain stupid.

You can create great art, or poetry, or stories or be a good person without being personally invested in a fairy tale, no matter how broadly believed it is. To say nothing of him saying that if you are an atheist and can do any of those things, you're actually religious without knowing it.

When someone says something like that, I put them in the same basket as flat-earth theorists.

StatusNil:
Beyond that, you think he's making up buzz terms, while I'm sure he's sincere about his concern with postmodernists, neo-Marxists, SJWs, whatever you call them. Nothing much there to discuss further. One thing I don't get though, Hegel? Where do you get Hegel from? Nietzsche obviously, he's a vocal fanboi. But Hegel, to my limited knowledge, was all about progress, the evolving geist. It's not something I get from Peterson at all.

I've heard him try to combine the thoughts of Hinduism, Judaism and Islamism with those of Christianity and derive similarities between them. I'd call that progressive. He does point out differences, to be sure and how Christianity is the... lets say, best choice.

He does think its horrible that people don't believe in any god. And that's not a over exaggeration. He uses horrible and terrible and doomsdayish speak for anything he doesn't like. For example, I remember him stating that young people don't know anything, and that when they go to University, lecturers expect them to criticise social structure. This is horrible in his eyes. This should stop.

Now I can agree. Young people don't have much experience. They aren't going to critique the world "well." But I say that normal, good even. How do you learn about the world if you don't think about it? Peterson wants to stop students from doing particular things. I'd prefer they try it at University where someone can critique them and guide them to things they don't see.

trunkage:

Now I can agree. Young people don't have much experience. They aren't going to critique the world "well." But I say that normal, good even. How do you learn about the world if you don't think about it? Peterson wants to stop students from doing particular things. I'd prefer they try it at University where someone can critique them and guide them to things they don't see.

This is really pertinent, as that's, you know, what schools are for supposedly. As all the people with lots of pedagogic schooling in my vicinity likes to tell me, an important part of learning is trying your skill set out and thus finding out what you know and what you still need to learn better. Doesn't matter if we are talking four year olds who are learning basic math by stacking and counting blocks, a conscripted soldier who gets dumped in a forest with a vague "survive for two days" as guidance or someone going for a social science degree being asked to deliver a critique of contemporary social systems. They are all being done so the person in question can test and improve their skills in the field. Pedagogic studies have overwhelmingly shown that classical authoritarian "teacher tells, student learns"-style teaching is ineffective and that having students engage with the subject (by building themselves, by starting their own fire or formulating flaws in the Nordic Model) is a much more effective way of imparting lasting knowledge and building the basis for future understanding.

But then, others in this thread have already pointed out the irony in that Peterson is terrified of the essyewdubyas taking away free speech at universities, yet he himself argues for not only taking away free speech but effectively impeding the pedagogic process and thus hampering the actual work the university is supposed to be doing with undergraduates.

Gethsemani:
But then, others in this thread have already pointed out the irony in that Peterson is terrified of the essyewdubyas taking away free speech at universities, yet he himself argues for not only taking away free speech but effectively impeding the pedagogic process and thus hampering the actual work the university is supposed to be doing with undergraduates.

This is a new angle I haven't seen, though it does follow certain trends some politicals use to introduce doubt and chaos by taking a word or act and then twisting and turning it around on those that previously used it (trying to establish their norm by imperiously conquering that word or act).

I would be interested in seeing the merits of your words and the degree of truth in it.
Could you show and tell how Peterson tries to take away free speech and impede/hamper the "pedagogic process"?

He started off by critiquing an overbroad law here in Ontario, in what would (in a couple of publicized fringe cases) turn out to be correct.

With a bit of publicity behind him and "Told you so" cred, he seems to have spiralled off into his own slightly paranoid doomsday prophecy and decided to espouse his own solutions (none of which are particularly groundbreaking or new ideas, despite some catchy names).

While he's got some intellectual standing, and obvious credentials, they don't seem to be in political or economic thought, given how often he misuses terms, or he is appealing specifically to an audience on the Right/AltRight. Right down to his initial battle against them wacky lefties being with the Liberal Party of Canada, which is a center or center right, despite the name and Justin Trudeau's public image (which would take another thread to properly dissect).

I'm not opposed to a bit of eccentricity if it endsu p constructive (Elon Musk, for all that his reasons for wanting to go to Mars are illogical gibberish, at least is advancing technology in the process), but Peterson seems content to just float around as a talking head and doomsayer rather then offer up much actual work.

Vendor-Lazarus:

Gethsemani:
But then, others in this thread have already pointed out the irony in that Peterson is terrified of the essyewdubyas taking away free speech at universities, yet he himself argues for not only taking away free speech but effectively impeding the pedagogic process and thus hampering the actual work the university is supposed to be doing with undergraduates.

This is a new angle I haven't seen, though it does follow certain trends some politicals use to introduce doubt and chaos by taking a word or act and then twisting and turning it around on those that previously used it (trying to establish their norm by imperiously conquering that word or act).

I would be interested in seeing the merits of your words and the degree of truth in it.
Could you show and tell how Peterson tries to take away free speech and impede/hamper the "pedagogic process"?

Like I already stated - how he dislikes students being critical of the world.

But something more specific is the original issue that got him fame. The university he worked at wanted him to treat a particular student a certain way and asked for him to change. He disliked this and got this request rescinded. The university, a private institution, has had their free speech removed. Now, the university isn't a being, so I'm not particularly talking about them but the particular administrators that were involved. Their interest was allow students in Peterson class to express themselves as they like. They were protecting someone else's freedom of speech.

So, in a massive generalisation, the Left is concerned about impingement on the uni and the students while the Right is worried about the Lecturer. IMO, both sides are right.

trunkage:

Vendor-Lazarus:

Gethsemani:
But then, others in this thread have already pointed out the irony in that Peterson is terrified of the essyewdubyas taking away free speech at universities, yet he himself argues for not only taking away free speech but effectively impeding the pedagogic process and thus hampering the actual work the university is supposed to be doing with undergraduates.

This is a new angle I haven't seen, though it does follow certain trends some politicals use to introduce doubt and chaos by taking a word or act and then twisting and turning it around on those that previously used it (trying to establish their norm by imperiously conquering that word or act).

I would be interested in seeing the merits of your words and the degree of truth in it.
Could you show and tell how Peterson tries to take away free speech and impede/hamper the "pedagogic process"?

Like I already stated - how he dislikes students being critical of the world.

But something more specific is the original issue that got him fame. The university he worked at wanted him to treat a particular student a certain way and asked for him to change. He disliked this and got this request rescinded. The university, a private institution, has had their free speech removed. Now, the university isn't a being, so I'm not particularly talking about them but the particular administrators that were involved. Their interest was allow students in Peterson class to express themselves as they like. They were protecting someone else's freedom of speech.

So, in a massive generalisation, the Left is concerned about impingement on the uni and the students while the Right is worried about the Lecturer. IMO, both sides are right.

Being critical of the world shouldn't be silenced no, but I don't see how merely disliking their form of criticism is equal to silencing them. How is he silencing them? Even critique shouldn't be immune to critique.

A student should be free to call him/herself whatever they want, in their own mind through their own words or actions. As long as it doesn't harm anyone else or force them to conform to their world-view through speech, which is the initial silencing that took place by trying to change Peterson's speech.

As the "progressives", when speaking about free speech, are so quick to point out; Free Speech does not confer the right of immunity from critique (/Free Speech).

Student tried to force a teacher, through the system, to change their speech.
That should be the outrage.

In this case, I disagree that both sides are right.

Vendor-Lazarus:

trunkage:

Vendor-Lazarus:

This is a new angle I haven't seen, though it does follow certain trends some politicals use to introduce doubt and chaos by taking a word or act and then twisting and turning it around on those that previously used it (trying to establish their norm by imperiously conquering that word or act).

I would be interested in seeing the merits of your words and the degree of truth in it.
Could you show and tell how Peterson tries to take away free speech and impede/hamper the "pedagogic process"?

Like I already stated - how he dislikes students being critical of the world.

But something more specific is the original issue that got him fame. The university he worked at wanted him to treat a particular student a certain way and asked for him to change. He disliked this and got this request rescinded. The university, a private institution, has had their free speech removed. Now, the university isn't a being, so I'm not particularly talking about them but the particular administrators that were involved. Their interest was allow students in Peterson class to express themselves as they like. They were protecting someone else's freedom of speech.

So, in a massive generalisation, the Left is concerned about impingement on the uni and the students while the Right is worried about the Lecturer. IMO, both sides are right.

Being critical of the world shouldn't be silenced no, but I don't see how merely disliking their form of criticism is equal to silencing them. How is he silencing them? Even critique shouldn't be immune to critique.

A student should be free to call him/herself whatever they want, in their own mind through their own words or actions. As long as it doesn't harm anyone else or force them to conform to their world-view through speech, which is the initial silencing that took place by trying to change Peterson's speech.

As the "progressives", when speaking about free speech, are so quick to point out; Free Speech does not confer the right of immunity from critique (/Free Speech).

Student tried to force a teacher, through the system, to change their speech.
That should be the outrage.

In this case, I disagree that both sides are right.

Disallowing a private entity from having it's free speech? No I can't see a problem with that. Maybe it's becuase I generally like private entities to have free will and not beholden to government control. I personally think that the university was wrong BUT I'm not going to send government goons in to make a entity do what I want. To me that's the opposite of free speech.

A lecturer tried to did force a university, through the system, to change their speech. It might not disturb you, but it sure disturbs me

trunkage:
A lecturer tried to did force a university, through the system, to change their speech. It might not disturb you, but it sure disturbs me

Wouldn't it be accurate to say that the lecturer prevented the university from forcing a method of speech upon the lecturer?

You have to remember who swung first here, it was not Peterson. One way or another someone/thing's rights were going to be redefined at the end.

I would much rather it be an employee's than an employer's that came out on top.

Abomination:

trunkage:
A lecturer tried to did force a university, through the system, to change their speech. It might not disturb you, but it sure disturbs me

Wouldn't it be accurate to say that the lecturer prevented the university from forcing a method of speech upon the lecturer?

You have to remember who swung first here, it was not Peterson. One way or another someone/thing's rights were going to be redefined at the end.

I would much rather it be an employee's than an employer's that came out on top.

Just not the students.

Abomination:

trunkage:
A lecturer tried to did force a university, through the system, to change their speech. It might not disturb you, but it sure disturbs me

Wouldn't it be accurate to say that the lecturer prevented the university from forcing a method of speech upon the lecturer?

You have to remember who swung first here, it was not Peterson. One way or another someone/thing's rights were going to be redefined at the end.

I would much rather it be an employee's than an employer's that came out on top.

Yes the student was first. It's also a 19 yr old who probably needs a talking to instead of this outrage from both sides.

The student is also a customer and, in our capitalists system, they have more rights than employees. I don't think that's necessarily fair. It's just what is. If this happened in a Walmart or McDonalds, I'd dare say Peterson would be fired for treating a customer that way

Edit: I wanted to make sure that I state that I agree with your sentiment employees over employers. Its just not the system we have.

Vendor-Lazarus:
Could you show and tell how Peterson tries to take away free speech and impede/hamper the "pedagogic process"?

Well, the most obvious one is that he attempted to set up a website which would maintain a blacklist of courses and academics based on the content of their courses (which fortunately, he suspended after realising that even a significant proportion of his supporters could realise where that would go). More generally, he routinely calls quite openly for the removal (as in suspension, shutting down, cutting funding of, getting rid of, firing those involved) of courses in disciplines or fields he doesn't like or thinks are "corrupt" (his own words). These include sociology, anthropology and English literature. All, apparently, disciplines which students should not be allowed to study due to the politically objectionable content which he alleges is taught within them.

Now, I don't know how you feel, but to me that is a demand for academic censorship which, as I've pointed out is probably the most frightening and dangerous form of censorship. A political purge of universities is literally the first thing every authoritarian regime does after coming to power.

Abomination:
Wouldn't it be accurate to say that the lecturer prevented the university from forcing a method of speech upon the lecturer?

You have to remember who swung first here, it was not Peterson. One way or another someone/thing's rights were going to be redefined at the end.

Like it or hate it, in academia we are service providers. We provide a service to students, and they pay the university for the privilege. Those fees pay Peterson's salary.

The idea that someone employed, on a very generous salary, to teach young adults cannot make reasonable adjustments to ensure their classroom is a welcoming and comfortable place for all students because of their personal political judgements is ridiculous. If I ever did that as a GTA, I'd lose my job so fast the door wouldn't stop spinning for a week.

There are very, very few things in this world more irritating than senior academics expecting to get away with monstrously unprofessional shit, while the rest of us have to live with being completely disposable.

trunkage:
The student is also a customer and, in our capitalists system, they have more rights than employees.

Depends how senior the employee is and how valuable the customer(s) is (are), really. Your average one-a-month purchaser of a chocolate bar is very rarely going to get far against the average confectionary company CEO, after all.

evilthecat:

Vendor-Lazarus:
Could you show and tell how Peterson tries to take away free speech and impede/hamper the "pedagogic process"?

Well, the most obvious one is that he attempted to set up a website which would maintain a blacklist of courses and academics based on the content of their courses (which fortunately, he suspended after realising that even a significant proportion of his supporters could realise where that would go). More generally, he routinely calls quite openly for the removal (as in suspension, shutting down, cutting funding of, getting rid of, firing those involved) of courses in disciplines or fields he doesn't like or thinks are "corrupt" (his own words). These include sociology, anthropology and English literature. All, apparently, disciplines which students should not be allowed to study due to the politically objectionable content which he alleges is taught within them.

Now, I don't know how you feel, but to me that is a demand for academic censorship which, as I've pointed out is probably the most frightening and dangerous form of censorship. A political purge of universities is literally the first thing every authoritarian regime does after coming to power.

I heard about the blacklist, though I can't remember if it was an actual blacklist or just named so.
Actual blacklists are a very bad form of awareness (when done by political/ideological individuals), since it doesn't actually inform the audience in any real depth.
I don't however see any problem with a list of critiqued academic institutions so that parents can make a more informed decision. Since it is now apparently an economical entity foremost, rating goods/services seems only fair..?
Never mind the political bent, if any.

I agree with you about blacklists, but would argue semantics..but that only leads down a maze of rabbit warrens.

---

I haven't watched/listened/read all of his works, but I can't recall hearing any calls for excising a certain social/political course, though I may be mistaken. Know any short clips on youtube within your casual reach?
If it is true, I agree that it is abhorrent and just another form of curtailing thought. Same as he then accuses of others. Unless it is yet another form of critique, and he simply asks what good it does or why it is being taught the way it is. It is nothing wrong with that.
Excising Corrupt teachings or teachers I fully agree with. Academics should remain..or should be.. an institution and place for learning facts. All sorts of facts. Not religion or politics. About them yes, and their history, but with a critical and frank detailing.

Vendor-Lazarus:

I heard about the blacklist, though I can't remember if it was an actual blacklist or just named so.
Actual blacklists are a very bad form of awareness (when done by political/ideological individuals), since it doesn't actually inform the audience in any real depth.
I don't however see any problem with a list of critiqued academic institutions so that parents can make a more informed decision. Since it is now apparently an economical entity foremost, rating goods/services seems only fair..?
Never mind the political bent, if any.

I agree with you about blacklists, but would argue semantics..but that only leads down a maze of rabbit warrens.

Semantics be damned. You create any sort of list of approved / non-approved university departments based on political ideology, it will be used politically as a blacklist irrespective of intentions.

Secondly, if a university is just a capitalist services provider, then free speech in universities really is meaningless. All that matters is what's economically worth saying - and what is false might be more lucrative. This is I think the most important issue in academic free speech, yet one overwhelmingly missed out whilst people are too busy carping about lecturers having different political views from them or student society meetings being disrupted by fire alarms.

Excising Corrupt teachings or teachers I fully agree with. Academics should remain..or should be.. an institution and place for learning facts.

Technically, I think the job of universities should be teaching us how to analyse and evalute evidence so we can determine what are facts for ourselves. Facts are also taught as part of the process of doing this, but aren't so much the aim.

What exactly a "corrupt" teacher is is unclear to me. I would suggest one that to a considerable extent teaches things that they know (or reasonably should know) to be false. But whilst one may disagree with many academics, it is overwhelmingly more a matter of opinion than objective truth. Hunting corruption may be dangerously close to political purge.

Vendor-Lazarus:

Excising Corrupt teachings or teachers I fully agree with. Academics should remain..or should be.. an institution and place for learning facts. All sorts of facts. Not religion or politics. About them yes, and their history, but with a critical and frank detailing.

Theory, praxis, aesthetics, technical skills, research, and critical thinking. None of these are facts on their own, all of them crucial to academia. More over what the hell is a 'corrupt teaching'? If it is exclusively the realm of not teaching 'facts', then you know fuck all about academia... in any of its discourses.

Fuck me... 'Corrupt teachings' ...

What's next? Book burnings?

Here's a fact that might help you, ignition temperature of standard, bleached paper is 233 degrees celcius.

Burning humans is a bit trickier. That requires persistent, roughly 350 degrees celcius if still alive or freshly killed, or body is kept in damp conditions. That's assuming you want human fat to actually catch alight. So you want a decent amount of either direct application of napalm or a large bonfire with dry wood if you prefer the 'classic' approach.

Vendor-Lazarus:
I don't however see any problem with a list of critiqued academic institutions so that parents can make a more informed decision. Since it is now apparently an economical entity foremost, rating goods/services seems only fair..?
Never mind the political bent, if any.

Right, but sites like that already exists (ratemyprofessors) and while they're atrociously misused and vulnerable to brigading and harassment they at least have the veneer of consumer advice and are compiled from actual input from a diverse body of students. Peterson's blacklist site would have literally been a "name and shame" list of academics and courses he considered politically objectionable. There would have been no attempt to actually rate the quality of said courses in terms of actual pedagogy, the quality of student experience or indeed anything which might help them make an informed decision.

Practically speaking, the only purpose of such a site is to facilitate targeting and harassment of academics on the basis of perceived political affiliation.

Vendor-Lazarus:
Excising Corrupt teachings or teachers I fully agree with. Academics should remain..or should be.. an institution and place for learning facts. All sorts of facts. Not religion or politics. About them yes, and their history, but with a critical and frank detailing.

Well, if that's the case, then the first person we need to defund the shit out of is Jordan Peterson. His evident political biases, erratic behaviour and intense involvement in political debates outside of his own discipline frankly crosses a line of professionalism which almost none of the people he wants to see defunded have ever crossed.

Jordan Peterson literally teaches a course on his own book, Maps of Meaning, which for anyone who has never read it is a bunch of Jungian nonsense containing such bizarre claims as archetypal mythology being shared across all human cultures (a first year anthropology student could tell you otherwise, but of course anthropology is "corrupt" so we don't have to listen to what those anthropologists say). This is okay, this is not political indoctrination. This is preparing students for the real world.

Kindergarten is a place for learning facts, elementary school is a place for learning facts. Academia is a place for learning academic skills.. skills like research, critical thinking, reasoning and argumentation. That is why we can have people with conflicting views within academia and not have it be a problem provided those views can be defended (which admittedly is not difficult, Jordan Peterson managed it). It becomes a problem when one of those people starts demanding that those whose views they don't like be defunded.

There are times when academics cross the line into unprofessionalism, but if you want to claim that has happened then you need to demonstrate it. The fact that someone doesn't agree with Jordan Peterson or that Jordan Peterson thinks their ideas are harmful is not in and of itself evidence of such unprofessionalism.

Agema:

What exactly a "corrupt" teacher is is unclear to me. I would suggest one that to a considerable extent teaches things that they know (or reasonably should know) to be false. But whilst one may disagree with many academics, it is overwhelmingly more a matter of opinion than objective truth. Hunting corruption may be dangerously close to political purge.

I believe I can shed some light on this mystery. A corrupt teacher would be one who is functionally a political activist who seeks to recruit students into their ranks, rather than a teacher who imparts understanding. This corruption is more a rule than an exception in many departments. Some are frankly openly denominational.

Let's say you have a class called "Contemporary Marxist Thought", and you give lectures elaborating on what is clearly identified as a particular political philosophy, with the expectation that students will understand these ideas. This would qualify as teaching. Now, compare it to a class called something purposefully vague, such as "Critical Approaches To Decolonizing Racial Spaces", where the Professor inculcates practices like the denunciation of "Toxic Whiteness" into their students as if it was merely a matter of advanced knowledge and grades them according to their unquestioning acceptance of such practices or even participating in activism. That's flagrant corruption of the institution of higher education, and deserves to be purged.

It's really very simple, and the personal beliefs of the teacher probably shouldn't even come into it, though I suppose it would be onerous to expressly forbid any expression of those. Still, I'm gonna frown on such indulgence, especially when it comes to younger undergraduates.

evilthecat:

Practically speaking, the only purpose of such a site is to facilitate targeting and harassment of academics on the basis of perceived political affiliation.

Nope, the purpose would be to make their political affiliation transparent to the students. It's merely Peterson's belief that such transparency would lead to a marked drop in their popularity.

StatusNil:

I believe I can shed some light on this mystery. A corrupt teacher would be one who is functionally a political activist who seeks to recruit students into their ranks, rather than a teacher who imparts understanding. This corruption is more a rule than an exception in many departments. Some are frankly openly denominational.

So it's wrong for, say, someone in geoscience to point out the rate by which plastics are destroying the environment? Many of the best researchers you find are people personally driven to study things. They write journal articles, books, and travel the globe examining the problem. And many courses within the humanities or the sciences are simply identifying key collective issues involved in a body of thought.

Let's say you have a class called "Contemporary Marxist Thought", and you give lectures elaborating on what is clearly identified as a particular political philosophy, with the expectation that students will understand these ideas.

Then they have a pretty good understanding of what they're going into, what they'll get out of it, or they fail the course.

Seriously ... they invented course outlines for a reason. Why is it no one reads the fucking course outline?

It's really very simple, and the personal beliefs of the teacher probably shouldn't even come into it, though I suppose it would be onerous to expressly forbid any expression of those.

Yeah, it's called 'paternalism' ... and moreover why exactly does this not apply to Peterson? After all, the whole reason why he started peddling books to idiots is because he was acting on his personal beliefs as opposed to his employer's duty of care and services that had been pre-established.

Still, I'm gonna frown on such indulgence, especially when it comes to younger undergraduates.

Why? They're adults.

Nope, the purpose would be to make their political affiliation transparent to the students. It's merely Peterson's belief that such transparency would lead to a marked drop in their popularity.

You do understand you have these magical things called computers, and universities hold repositories on former courses including course outlines and associated worksof the people listed in the course?

Universities already do that thing you're pretending they don't.

What you're suggesting looks like McCarthyism.

He misrepresented the C-16 bill in Canada in order to say it was about free speech when it really was about discrimination. Kind of like how Ben Shapiro is against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he viewed it as an overreach of the Government.

StatusNil:

I believe I can shed some light on this mystery. A corrupt teacher would be one who is functionally a political activist who seeks to recruit students into their ranks, rather than a teacher who imparts understanding. This corruption is more a rule than an exception in many departments. Some are frankly openly denominational.

Let's say you have a class called "Contemporary Marxist Thought", and you give lectures elaborating on what is clearly identified as a particular political philosophy, with the expectation that students will understand these ideas. This would qualify as teaching. Now, compare it to a class called something purposefully vague, such as "Critical Approaches To Decolonizing Racial Spaces", where the Professor inculcates practices like the denunciation of "Toxic Whiteness" into their students as if it was merely a matter of advanced knowledge and grades them according to their unquestioning acceptance of such practices or even participating in activism. That's flagrant corruption of the institution of higher education, and deserves to be purged.

It's really very simple, and the personal beliefs of the teacher probably shouldn't even come into it, though I suppose it would be onerous to expressly forbid any expression of those. Still, I'm gonna frown on such indulgence, especially when it comes to younger undergraduates.

Okay, where to start...

Much of what gets taught in universities is theoretical and unproven - even in science - and lecturers will be likely to put their own spin on it. You can't just draw the line at some humanities lecturers, so this needs to go much further than you think.

You're proposing academic policing. On one level, that is nothing less than the death of academic freedom. In particular, you're proposing politicised control of academia - an external force to come in and control what is taught in universities. This is basically what the USSR and China did: remove anything ideologically unfavoured (or "politically incorrect" as we could perhaps put it) from their educations. Have you noticed, for instance, some of the US right arguing climate science is a bunch of politicised, corrupt academics? Do you think they wouldn't use the jail keys you've just handed them to lock up stuff like that too? That really is what you're suggesting here - I think it's important to point out, because you appear to believe yourself a supporter of free speech.

Nope, the purpose would be to make their political affiliation transparent to the students. It's merely Peterson's belief that such transparency would lead to a marked drop in their popularity.

Students might use it usefully. (Although honestly, I'm not sure university is really achieving its function when it becomes like media, where politicised students select out the programme that reinforces whatever they already want to believe.)

But what about right-wing activists? It is hopelessly naivety to think such information would sit as nothing more than an innocent resource for the alleged benefit of students. What happens when it gets used to name and shame, generate abusive hate mail, pressurise universities to sack staff and blacklist, and be brandished by politicians as a tool to defend political control of teaching (as you have called for above)?

Addendum_Forthcoming:

So it's wrong for, say, someone in geoscience to point out the rate by which plastics are destroying the environment?

Cathy Newman much? The rate of plastics destroying the environment has a physical reality to it, which is somewhat more than can be said for the teachings of the humanities. Of course the teacher should disclose the source of their numbers to enable eventual independent evaluation.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Yeah, it's called 'paternalism' ... and moreover why exactly does this not apply to Peterson?

All things being equal, it should apply to Peterson as well. Unfortunately, some things are way more equal than others.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

They're adults.

Hah, good one.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

What you're suggesting looks like McCarthyism.

Preferable to the Wilhelm Frickeism of the Current Year universities.

StatusNil:

Cathy Newman much? The rate of plastics destroying the environment has a physical reality to it, which is somewhat more than can be said for the teachings of the humanities. Of course the teacher should disclose the source of their numbers to enable eventual independent evaluation.

So basically what universities do now... that's nice?

All things being equal, it should apply to Peterson as well. Unfortunately, some things are way more equal than others.

But laws don't work like that. If Peterson wants yo publish self-'help' books for angsty men, I don't much care.

What I do have a problem with is pretending like his rhetoric has any basis in action.

Hah, good one.

I know... it's a pretty good argument that people should research and look up easily accessible materials universities have to make educated decisions how they want to spend their money.

What's the alternative? Outlawing disciplines you don't like for no other actual grounds that you don't like them?

Hey... I won't be crying if someone like Sheila Jeffreys loses her job, but I'm not going to take a torch and pitchfork to her career regardless of her flaws.

You don't need idiotic blacklists and witchhunts when you quite literally have all the information at your fingertips that you can access simply by being enrolled someplace. What you're suggesting is flat-out stupid. I don't need someone so broken as a Peterson telling me which books to read.

After all... unlike you, I've already read some of his claptrap. I wouldn't trust him within ten miles of a blackboard containing critical theory.

Preferable to the Wilhelm Frickeism of the Current Year universities.

Correction... it's better than any of the nonsense you're spouting.

Because everything you need to make an educated purchase is already in common supply. It's almost as if you skipped over the point I made how these materials are freely accessible to students.

Agema:

Okay, where to start...

Much of what gets taught in universities is theoretical and unproven - even in science - and lecturers will be likely to put their own spin on it. You can't just draw the line at some humanities lecturers, so this needs to go much further than you think.

You're proposing academic policing. On one level, that is nothing less than the death of academic freedom. In particular, you're proposing politicised control of academia - an external force to come in and control what is taught in universities. This is basically what the USSR and China did: remove anything ideologically unfavoured (or "politically incorrect" as we could perhaps put it) from their educations.

It's indicative of the perversity of the situation that a call for less politicized control of academia is seen as "proposing politicized control of academia". Damn right academia should be capable of policing itself against outright co-optation by political interests, but clearly that isn't the case. I mean, institutions are adopting mission statements including very specific language about promoting "Social Justice". That's not so much a "dog whistle" as a plain declaration of allegiance, to something very much like the vision of Gleichschaltung of past German statesmen... I hear it was Minister of the Interior Wilhelm Frick who quite eloquently denounced the "Liberal fallacy" of objective education, but I'm having problems finding the relevant 1933 decree.

Emergency being the case, some emergency measures are called for. Which might indeed include some kind of outside intervention into these captured institutions. I sincerely hope it will be a necessity of the utmost temporariness.

Agema:

Have you noticed, for instance, some of the US right arguing climate science is a bunch of politicised, corrupt academics? Do you think they wouldn't use the jail keys you've just handed them to lock up stuff like that too? That really is what you're suggesting here - I think it's important to point out, because you appear to believe yourself a supporter of free speech.

First of all, I have to point out that I'm ridiculously unqualified to assess climate science. Obviously I used to accept what was presented as a very nearly unanimous scientific consensus as a given. I clearly recognize the special interests that stand to benefit from discrediting it. However, the more I look into the practices of academia, the more I also recognize the perverse incentives in the competitive escalation of the terms of any such consensus ( "You think what those guys are saying is bad? Get a load of my Alarming Findings!"), as well as other inherently corrupting factors. Who is one supposed to believe?

The point is that all the brazenly obvious institutional politicization is undermining the credibility of any actual scientific expertise too. It's in the interests of anyone who wishes in good faith to benefit from research other than on a temporary political basis to see it sharply curtailed.

Agema:

But what about right-wing activists? It is hopelessly naivety to think such information would sit as nothing more than an innocent resource for the alleged benefit of students. What happens when it gets used to name and shame, generate abusive hate mail, pressurise universities to sack staff and blacklist, and be brandished by politicians as a tool to defend political control of teaching (as you have called for above)?

Activists of all stripes are going to activist in a free society. The best we can require is for them to do so openly, rather than clandestinely infiltrating ostensibly objective "knowledge production". As for all this "naming and shaming", "generating abusive hate mail" and so on, that is the world we have enthusiastically built. And singling out "the right wing" for engaging in these activities is sheer hypocrisy.

You know what would make it less tenable for politicians to "defend political control of teaching"? A robust rejection of teaching as politics. So how about we get on with articulating and implementing something on those lines?

StatusNil:
It's indicative of the perversity of the situation that a call for less politicized control of academia is seen as "proposing politicized control of academia".

But your theory is that academia, currently, is inappropriately politicised, not that it is politically controlled. No-one is (currently) dictating what the academics you don't like should or should not teach.

I mean, institutions are adopting mission statements including very specific language about promoting "Social Justice".

Depends what is meant by "social justice". You have to bear in mind that what they and others mean by it is very different, and what upholding it means in terms of policy. Indeed, large tracts of what I think social justice represents (outside the shrill ignorami of Reddit and Tumblr) could and should be heartily endorsed by all manner of right-wingers; although perhaps classical liberals and libertarians more than conservatives.

Emergency being the case, some emergency measures are called for. Which might indeed include some kind of outside intervention into these captured institutions. I sincerely hope it will be a necessity of the utmost temporariness.

Again, a quick glance at the real world would tell us "temporary measures" have a nasty habit of being permanent. Not least because once precedent is set, it becomes more palatable to repeat "temporary" measures, and the "emergencies" which invite temporary extraordinary measures become less and less serious.

First of all, I have to point out that I'm ridiculously unqualified to assess climate science.

How do you know that you're well qualified to assess the humanities you're attacking?

Mostly, though, who cares? Not being qualified to assess something doesn't prevent a lot people from thinking they should control it. Indeed, that's largely the stuff of everyday politics - I don't think most democratic representatives have much deep knowledge of half the bills they pass or reject. Political control means academic thought and free speech to be dictated by whatever wins votes, which potentially means lowest common denominator appeals to the mass public.

And singling out "the right wing" for engaging in these activities is sheer hypocrisy.

In this case, it is the appropriate wing to single out. In others, it is not.

Broadly, just about everything is at least somewhat politicised; such is the nature of politics. It is notable, perhaps, that many in various wings of the political divide only seem to be annoyed by politicisation that they perceive to serve their opponents.

StatusNil:
I believe I can shed some light on this mystery. A corrupt teacher would be one who is functionally a political activist who seeks to recruit students into their ranks, rather than a teacher who imparts understanding.

Anyone who understands the academic process will realise there isn't a clear distinction.

When a student pays to attend university, they are not paying to be taught to a state-managed curriculum by a teacher who could easily be replaced with a computer (and within a few decades, most teachers probably will). They're paying for the time of some of the leading experts within an academic field, people who are actively engaged in a discipline. This means whoever teaches them will have a personal perspective on the discipline, and quite possibly on broader life, which will inevitably shape the student experience to some degree. It's a mentoring relationship between adults, not a teaching relationship aimed at children.

Anyone who has done a degree in the humanities will be aware of this amazing institution called a "library". It's a place where many, many books are stored and where, through the internet, literally millions of online articles can be accessed through an institution's research portal. The foundation of any degree in the humanities is not the lecture hall, but the library. Lectures are a supplement to break up and structure the student's process of independent study and reading. Sure, many students skip reading, or only read the bare minimum texts for their course. Those students are not badly taught, they are not being indoctrinated, they are not being failed, they are failing themselves.

StatusNil:
Now, compare it to a class called something purposefully vague, such as "Critical Approaches To Decolonizing Racial Spaces"

The problem is, that title isn't vague at all. It just doesn't make sense. Each individual part of it makes sense and is worthy of academic discussion, but the way it's put together is meaningless. We know what a critical approach is, we know what decolonization means, we know what race is and we know what [marked] space is. Everything should fit together, but it doesn't. It's almost as if you wrote that not thinking that the words you were writing meant anything.

See, this kind of thing leads me to believe, as I increasingly do, that this isn't really about teaching, this is about a bog-standard, anti-intellectual suspicion of discipline-specific terminology and a bizarre conspiracy theory that said terminology must be hiding something. Do we think this about all disciplines? I mean, I don't know what "layered transition metal dichalcogenides" is. Should I assume that this is code for some kind of secret political agenda?

To test your little theory, I logged into my institution's research database and did a search for "toxic whiteness". Do you know how many matches I got? Zero.. I found an article called "Toxic Racism" which I guess in the whiny, anti-intellectual, post-purge universe where we aren't allowed to talk about race because we might hurt some politically incorrect fee fees might qualify, but most of the articles I've found seem to be about how the risk of exposure to environmental toxins varies by race. Or are we not allowed to talk about that either without incurring the wrath of the fragile white conservatives who now unilaterally get to decide what is worthy of academic discussion?

This thing you claim is so ubiquitous students literally can't escape from it doesn't exist. It so completely does not exist that I, a PhD student in a "corrupt" discipline with years of research experience, cannot find a single reference to it.

StatusNil:
Nope, the purpose would be to make their political affiliation transparent to the students. It's merely Peterson's belief that such transparency would lead to a marked drop in their popularity.

If you think that being disliked by another academic for political reasons is something that needs to be rendered "transparent", then you have forfeited any kind of moral or intellectual authority to lecture others about the consequences of political bias.

Jordan Peterson is proof that it takes no intelligence whatsoever to become a "respected intellectual" of the political right.

Gergar12:
He misrepresented the C-16 bill in Canada in order to say it was about free speech when it really was about discrimination. Kind of like how Ben Shapiro is against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he viewed it as an overreach of the Government.

Par for the course. He also thinks "enforced monogamy" is gonna fix our incel problem, and for the life of me I can't figure out how without going to some horrifying places.

He's the stereotypical no-nothing academic

Well since he subscribes to the bullshit idea that if we just force women to marry men, you know like 'widespread monogamy' we'll solve the current problem of violent 'Incels' going around killing people, my opinion of him isn't very high frankly.

Because my opinion of anyone who validates this kind of mindset and prevents these guys from actually seeking therapy and help and climbing out of these hate filled echo chambers is actually pretty damn low. There are many vulnerable young men out there who could use support but people like Peterson just reinforce the ideas that create the next Elliot Rodger and the next one after that and it's hard not to think at least part of that is because it's much more profitable to stoke young male hatred and bitterness towards women then suggest 'hey guys, maybe try and find healthier ways of living?'

He's the worst pick for the Canadian offense I've ever seen.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked