Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive3

Jordan Peterson is soooo rich
An estimate of Jordan Peterson's Patreon income keeps getting added to the introduction, and I keep removing it for the following reasons:
 * (1) How much is Jordan Peterson's Patreon income is irrelevant. One thing is saying that he has a lot of patreons, that is an useful information which tells that he is supported by many people; Another thing is trying "to make Jordan Peterson's tax returns" with the obvious intent of point to "guilty money", while Patreon is a voluntary platform.
 * (2) There is no certain way to tell if the given estimate is correct or not, also because I guess that one has to pay taxes on Patreon income... hence it is not a factual information but a pure speculation.

--McLaghing (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would concur, however we do cite the fundraising figures for other Youtube and internet figures in regards to sites like Patreon. 14:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, then my points also applies to those other people. Unless there is a very good reason to know how much someone gets on Patreon (like "he was a poor guy, but his brillant idea made him rich thanks to Patreon", or "he claimed to use his Patreon money to fund ISIS"), and unless the precise amount of money is known, I do not see why it should be important. --McLaghing (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I see in the log that in your opinion the amount of Jordan Peterson's Patreon is "relevant to his claims of persecu[tion]". Would you join the discussion and explain how? If one gets a lot on money on Patreon then he cannot claim to be persecuted? What is your point? --McLaghing (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * his income is relevant for two reasons. [1] we should gauge the importance of critiquing people both by the badness of their ideas and by the extent of their publicity. the high income shows that peterson has substantial publicity and power to get even more. [2] as with Alex Jones, showcasing his income indicates that Peterson may have incentives to pander to an audience or otherwise be less than honest. it also shatters the idea that Peterson is a (literally) poor professor, being destroyed by the system. 19:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * responding to the "correctness" point: it doesn't really matter if the estimate is 10% or even 25% off, low or high: the important point is the order of magnitude. 19:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "[1] we should gauge the importance of critiquing people both by the badness of their ideas and by the extent of their publicity. the high income shows that peterson has substantial publicity and power to get even more." <- To show that JP is highly popular and influential it is enough to cite his Twitter/Facebook/Youtube/Patreon followers/views, and that I agree, as I have already said, that "is an useful information which tells that he is supported by many people." On the other hand, I do not see a reason to start talking about money income.


 * "showcasing his income indicates that Peterson may have incentives to pander to an audience or otherwise be less than honest." <- These are just your suppositions: I could say that since he has already a lot of money, then he has less incentives to "sell" his point of views in order to gratifies its audience... It seems like you are trying to make a "Big Pharma-like" argument, that is, if somebody makes money from something that he is dishonest about that thing.


 * "it also shatters the idea that Peterson is a (literally) poor professor, being destroyed by the system." <- But did Peterson claim to be literally a poor professor? If so, then I agree that a source of this Peterson's claim should be added and after that a rebuttal estimating his income should be written. Otherwise, you are talking about nothing. --McLaghing (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * [1a] why is it "enough" to cite YouTube, Facebook, Twitter? couldn't you argue that it's "enough" to showcase his YouTube sub/view count? this is an interest in completion, not sufficiency.
 * [1b] peterson has explicitly stated that he intends to use the money to further "education in the humanities" -- namely by creating his own lecture series etc. his money is thus a measure of future publicity.
 * [2] and I suppose you take a similar approach to Alex Jones or alt-med information publishers. cut it out: it's absurd to pretend that greed cannot be a motive. since we don't explicitly state the importance of peterson's patreon income, I am sure that our readers, being as logical and rational as yourself, will come to the same conclusions that you do. or do you not trust our readers?
 * 20:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "why is it "enough" to cite YouTube, Facebook, Twitter?" <- Those platforms show how much he is popular and influential. You should be the one giving arguments about why it is necessary to estimate his money income.
 * "peterson has explicitly stated that he intends to use the money to further "education in the humanities" -- namely by creating his own lecture series etc. his money is thus a measure of future publicity." <- So we should estimate his money, to estimate (nobody knows how) his future publicity, because that tells how much he is followed, even if that is already showed by giving the number of his Twitter/Facebook/Patreon followers? Really, linear...
 * "[2] and I suppose you take a similar approach to Alex Jones or alt-med information publishers. cut it out: it's absurd to pretend that greed cannot be a motive." <- You are trying to move the conversation on another topics: We are not talking about alternative media "greed". If you have factual information, like proofs of a "master plan" by Jordan Peterson in order to get lot of money by tricking his followers so that he can satisfies his greed, then let me know.
 * "or do you not trust our readers?" <- I never said that.


 * Summarizing, your arguments to show an estimates of JP Patreons income are: [1] It is needed to show how much publicity he has, but you are not able to explain why citing his Twitter/Facebook/Patreon followers is not enough and it is necessary to talk about money. [2] It indicates that Peterson maybe dishonest, because if you make money then you maybe dishonest. It is also a rebuttal that Peterson is literally a "poor professor", although you ignored my question about if Peterson had ever made such a claim.


 * I am in no way convinced, and I keep the removal. --McLaghing (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not good to fight over this issue. Fuzzy has seniority of sorts, and that should be respected. Don't edit war with the fuzz. Look for a compromise. Please.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "It's not good to fight over this issue. Fuzzy has seniority of sorts," <- So are pages changed accordingly to seniority instead of rational arguments?
 * "Look for a compromise." <- Actually I showed to be open to change my position when I wrote "did Peterson claim to be literally a poor professor? If so, then I agree that a source of this Peterson's claim should be added and after that a rebuttal estimating his income should be written." but completely ignore my question (and he was the one raising the "poor professor" issue). So I am not the one who do not accept compromise, it is FuzzyCatPotato. Also, I can propose even another "compromise": Peterson have been denied a federal funding and RebelMedia raised a campaign to fund him https://thevarsity.ca/2017/05/01/jordan-petersons-federal-funding-denied-rebel-media-picks-up-the-tab/. FuzzyCatPotato can write a section about that and then add all the information about Jordan Peterson's money he can get, because in such a case it would be relevant to the section. Let's see what he has to say about that. --McLaghing (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that a separate section on Peterson's financing could be written. That he was denied a grant after his fall-out with bill-C-16 supporters is connected. Something about how the political left is pushing him toward the right? Follow the money.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Somehow you missed the point: Including MORE facts (completion) is not harmful, and more information about his publicity IS helpful. 20:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So now that you have failed to argue your points [1] and [2], you come up with another motivation: "It's just adding more information". I have already answered to that in my with post of this section. Also, you (again) completely ignored my last reply, where I proposed to write a section about Peterson's funding denial where all the information about Peterson's income could be added. Since you showed no effort to have a conversation I am not going to continue. --McLaghing (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing, I believe I overall agree with you; 's argument is a weak appeal to authority and can be dismissed, and while I generally agree with on principle (we should show how much he earns because of the publicity he's generated, his influence, and apparently how popular he is), I also disagree on some of the finer points (I also don't really agree with adding the calculation of his patreon). I do think a simple "he made X amount of money on Patreon and has X amount of Patrons" suffices and is important, though if we don't know the money and have to conjure assumptions (hence, speculation), then that's bad. Fuzzy, I don't think McLaghing is arguing against putting income information all together, just doesn't want details of calculations based on speculation and probably will be okay with vaguer estimates (or at least be "warmer"). 23:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If so, then we could jsut note that Peterson made 66,636.40 per month when he had 6099 patrons 05:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as I know I have not made an argument about this topic. Ostensibly you have made a moderator's decision about something I have argued, but it is uncertain what that might be. I have, all along, subordinated my position as a contributor on this article to Fuzzy's.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ??? Here, I just pointed out that your "don't argue with a senior editor" argument is baseless. There is no "moderator's decision". Regarding other contexts, I've not made any moderator decisions aside from trying to settle down arguments. 19:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "I [..] think McLaghing [...] just doesn't want details of calculations based on speculation" <- Yes, but mostly I think that Peterson's income should be added if relevant. As I have mentioned, and Ariel31459 agree on that, a section about Peterson's federal funding denial could be written, and there all information about Peterson's income will be relevant, and I would agree about writing them. What I oppose is just putting it on the introduction, also after a "Wingnut welfare" citation (how people who paid JP voluntary can be considered welfare... and who says that they are all wingnuts...), like there was something wrong with getting money that way. --McLaghing (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem including both federal funding denial subsection AND a little short fact about how much he earns in the opening paragraph(s), just as an opener. What do you think? 19:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that I have to repeat myself: The income (besides the fact that we have no evidence how much it is) has no reasons to be in the introduction. Regarding publicity, mentioning the number of his Patreon supporters (which we know for sure) is enough. On the other hand, writing about Peterson's Patreon income (of course I mean the public data available from the past, not pure speculations) in the section about federal funding denial would make sense: It shows that he have been able to get resources even after denial from academia. I do not see how much else could been said, also because on the other side no real argument has been proposed and now the discussion has even touched Trump's tax return... --McLaghing (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So, you think it's a good idea to write a one-sentence summary from federal funding denial for the opening passage? If not, then why? I apologize, it's not quite clear to me what you're arguing. 20:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are able to write a one-sentence summary about Jordan Peterson being denied a federal funding because ... hence RebelMedia raised a crowfunding that get... and however Peterson is supported by Patreon getting ... etc. Then go on. But I think that summarizing that in the introduction it is quite difficult and that putting that in a specific section is much better. --McLaghing (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey, I just like to see the subsection being made. 20:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I wrote the section on funding denial, check it out. I am quite sure that this will not change the position of FuzzyCatPotato, anyway... --McLaghing (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

As an aside: the fact that Peterson felt it necessary to hide his income on Patreon is, for me, evidence enough that it should be included. 16:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Your reasoning seems like evidence that our object is to troll him. I hope it's funny trolling. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * People who hide their income (eg, Trump's tax returns) often do so for a reason. Here, it's almost certainly to play up the "just give me a little more money and I'll finally create the e-Humanities course that will crush the libcucks" angle, despite already having very high income. 18:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you know anyone who wants to let you know how much income they earn? Because I don't know anyone like that. "People who hide their income," includes most private individuals.I don't think it does any harm to reveal it if it can be publicly obtained. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Most private individuals don't hide their income, they simply fail to reveal it. Peterson's Internet Welfare Money was public, and then after a year, he specifically chose to hide it. Capiche? 21:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Somehow I get the feeling you think deciding not to disclose the amount of money you make is suspicious. Considering that almost no one does such disclosure who is a) not a charity or incorporated and b) making really serious lucre, I still think your reasoning is specious. But what the hell.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

A very simple point
Peterson's income is a good measure of the influence he has it shows how many people are willing to donate to him and how much money he has to dedicate to his causes. It is useful, relevant information like listing Alex Jones' income or Bill Gates' net worth.

's argument, that other information on publicity (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter) are "enough" misses a crucial point: The reason we list both YouTube and Facebook and Twitter is that his sustained popularity on multiple channels further proves that he has widespread publcity. Just listing the YouTube data would prove enough that he is popular; this provides an additional dimension along which to consider his popularity. Income operates in the same way. If there is not something harmful about including this information, then it should be included. 18:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

A very simple question
How the fuck is "extrapolating the data about Peterson's Patreons" just "pure speculation"? Unless we have reason to believe that the average amount of money given per person has substantially changed (up or down), it's an entirely reasonable assumption from the known data. 21:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any harm in pure speculation (the frontier of all scientific inquiry), as long as there is no doubt that it is pure speculation.I don't see the problem with educated guessing about hard facts like finances. Using Golden Rule Technology, I assume it is ethical because I would be encouraged if it became known other people support me. What can you conclude about people who give Peterson money? Don't guess.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

How ironic
removed the Patreon income clause from the opening paragraph and added a new section about loss of federal funding. McLaghing claimed that the Patreon income clause was "pure speculation" because it extrapolated Peterson's income data from October 2017. Because he is so solidly opposed to speculation, he included this fawning National Post article that utterly fails to provide a reason to believe that Peterson's funding was pulled because of his political views:

I find the assertion that Peterson has never been denied a grant (which McLaghing has repeated, without proof, in the article) particularly suspicious. Academics apply for grants and fail to receive them all the time. Is Peterson just such a lovable and intelligent person that he has never failed to receive funding for his programs? This is not proof at all for Peterson's alleged persecution by the federal government (which, given the many different institutions that allegedly oppose Peterson, is a conspiratorial claim). The persecution timeline also does not hold up: Peterson has been socially conservative for several years before this funding rejection.

And of course, even citing two hagiographic, speculative articles is not enough: McLaghing also cites older information (from early July 2017, rather than late October 2017) that minimizes the amount of income that Peterson receives ($50k per month, rather than $66.5k per month).

20:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * We know that this recent grant denial is allegedly a first because Peterson says it is on twitter. Now we just have to wait until a whistle-blower lets the cat out of the bag. If there is a bag, with a...cat,..in it...Ariel31459 (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "McLaghing removed the Patreon income clause from the opening paragraph and added a new section about loss of federal funding. McLaghing claimed that the Patreon income clause was "pure speculation" because it extrapolated Peterson's income data from October 2017. Because he is so solidly opposed to speculation, he included this fawning National Post article that utterly fails to provide a reason to believe that Peterson's funding was pulled because of his political views:" <- I think that now it should be clear to everyone that your editing are just destructive and that you are not interested in any discussion. I added the section on "Funding denial" after a discussion with Ariel and LeftyGreenMario. In that section there were no speculation but all factual information. I never wrote that "Peterson's funding was pulled because of his political views" (something without evidences) but I cited the National Post saying that "Peterson alleged that this denial is a retaliation for his statements against Bill C-16", which is true. At the end I added information of Peterson's Patreon income (something that should make you happy!) from the first article I was able to find. Then, you criticize me because you think that information are not up to date, and you put everything in the intro instead of just updating them.


 * Anyway, I am not going to read the rest of you 'very' long post. Why should I read it when you ignored two questions of mine? Why should I try to find a compromise when you show no effort in such direction? --McLaghing (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Postmodernism
You removed the quote: Noam Chomsky as well doubts the benefits of the social movements guided by post modernism, claiming: "It's worked as a way of insulating sectors of a kind of radical intelligentsia from popular movements and actual activism and it's serving as an instrument of power. I suspect that's the reason it is so readily tolerated in the universities; and it's all over the place, and in the third world as well." Which is fine. But this leaves the impression that Chomsky just thinks PM is obscure but not ubiquitous, which is wholly inaccurate.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a transcript of that talk? 20:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I transcribed the quote from the reference video. It's a 5 minute video, but the link starts at the quote, in the 5th minute.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Under construction
Is this template supposed to be in the article at the moment? If it is, isn't it meant to be at the top of the page? CowHouse (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We could add a switcher for these types of templates so the wording of the template says "this section is under construction". 20:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. I'm not sure if the template is meant to be for the section or the whole page. If it's for the whole page, it should be at the top. If it's for the section then wouldn't this template be more appropriate? The section is (presumably) going to be expanded rather than revamped. CowHouse (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The "expand section" template makes more sense to me. Mrtonysinclair (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Referencing
The video you cited for "Peterson explaining that atheism causes mass murder" is over 53 minutes long. We should not expect people to watch a video of this length to find the relevant quote. It should be timestamped. CowHouse (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The section of the video cited is transcribed on this page 15:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the comparison of Peterson to Islamist clerics
I'd like to point out the following: Peterson, for his part, has himself made criticisms of Islam and Islamist policies (Saudi Arabia's human rights abuses, for example). If criticizing Islamism is "inflammatory" and "Islamophobia", then maybe it's time to add an "Islamophobia" section to this article so that we can document Peterson's Islamophobic statements. Otherwise, you should explain why comparing the positions of Peterson to those of Islamist clerics is so objectionable before removing it. Mrtonysinclair (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Merely pointing out similarities between the positions of Peterson and positions of Islamist clerics is not in itself a criticism of either Peterson, Islam, or Islamist clerics.
 * 2) Islam is not the same as Islamism.
 * 3) Islamophobia is not the same as criticizing Islam in general
 * 4) Rationalwiki is not neutral. Indeed, the Rationalwiki article on Islam contains a number of criticisms of Islam.
 * Advocating for the most leftward view, comparing Peterson to orthodox Islamic clerics as a negative statement sounds Islamophobic. I can't help this. It's defined in a way that allows this interpretation. There should be no section on Islamophobia because if it is an offending area of Peterson's, it is not prominent. Maybe he kicks his dog. The stuff on Christianity says what must be said on religion, I think; or add a gratuitous derogation there if you think it fits.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't fit the charge of Islamophobia. The comparison is one between the ideas of Peterson and Islamist clerics, not Peterson and Islamic clerics as people. Again, the comparison is not in itself a "negative statement", as it merely makes a comparison between their positions rather than criticizing those positions. Considering your posting history on this site, I think it's pretty clear you are being disingenuous about Islamophobia (e.g.:     ). It is incredibly hypocritical of you to defend Sam Harris of the charge of Islamophobia (for example) on the grounds that Islamophobia "requires actual hatred or fear", only for you to turn around and label my additions as "Islamophobic".
 * I also disagree that Peterson's statements about Islam are not prominent. They have been commented on | The Ottowa Sun, Torontoist, Quillette, Rebel Media, and other news sources. His videos  about Islam have 500,000+ views, which is more than most of his videos, including all but three of his psychology lectures. And again, I am not necessarily saying that Peterson's statements are also Islamophobic, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Mrtonysinclair (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I admit that you are being quite rational. But there is some irrational usage involved in the term "Islamophobia." Of the three prominence references you gave, the first is a tweet about the term itself, and it is very negative and I translate it as "Only assholes use this term." Very dismissive. Your second and third links are, for some reason, dead already. I still think the quote is out of step with the jist of what we do here. You can ask Fuzzy about it. I don't approve of it. By the way, if you want to talk about Sam Harris,
 * why not go to that talk page, because he is not involved in this discussion.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed the links: Torontoist, Quillette, Rebel Media. My point in posting the links is not that I necessarily agree with them, but that Peterson's statements regarding Islam are prominent. And I don't want to talk about Sam Harris, I'm just pointing out that you're being hypocritical and disingenuous with regards to accusations of Islamophobia. Mrtonysinclair (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't argue with you about my hypocrisy. That's just my thing. But if you have experience with any kind of publication, you will find out that the story is the thing and nobody cares about the editor's hypocrisy. I don't think it looks good. I could be lying. My mendacity doesn't affect the way it looks to anyone else. What I really think: 1) comparing Peterson to Islamic clerics is funny but a clear example of Poe's Law. and 2) the sentence suggests that all Islamic clerics have bad opinions about women, (which may be true) yet seems Islamophobic. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Quantum Woo.
Social scientists are particularly unqualified to use the word "quantum" in their arguments. Physicists themselves claim the actual mechanics are really incomprehensible. I point this out with a reference to the greatest modern theorist of QM: Richard Feynman. Ariel31459The Hypocryphal
 * Doesn't matter. We're not talking about social scientists to begin with. We're talking about Peterson himself. Him being a social scientist doesn't excuse that he's overreaching his expertise. That's his own inadequacy.


 * Also m8, you might wanna check your signature. Your name is in red. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I presume that the users contributing to Quantum Woo have no expertise in QM. Why? Because it is useless for psychology or any social science and too difficult for amateur study. This is how we know Peterson is wrong: not because the Clever Hans who wrote the article has explained what Peterson got wrong, that question has gone begging. That's fine they don't need to have any expertise because Richard Feynman tells us that QM is not an intuitive theory that can be used as natural scientists schematically understand problems. This is exactly why using QM to explain anything quotidian is woo. No social scientists are able to do it because it can't be done. I would say the typical psychologist knows as much about QM as a pig knows about Sunday, a fact worth noting. Ariel31459The Hypocryphal
 * I didn't add an explanation because there are already articles on Rationalwiki on quantum woo and interpretations of QM, and going into the details is outside the scope of an article on Peterson (I forgot to add links to make it clear). For what it's worth, the article on Deepak Chopra (probably the most famous quantum woo-er) doesn't explain why he's wrong either, but links to the quantum woo article. And frankly I could do without the insults or the speculation about credentials- while I can't say I use QM in my work I did have to study it in undergrad (granted, in my experience physicists actually care a lot less about the interpretations of QM than science popularizers do - there's more of a "shut up and calculate" ethos). Mrtonysinclair (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not speculating about your credentials. QM, as you have pointed out, is a pure mathematical science. It is not intuitive. It cannot be used to help psychologists explain speech disfluencies, or gender theory, psychosis, or language acquisition. The RW article on Quantum Woo talks about buzzwords. It does not state what I have discussed here. That is, no Social science will ever use QM, in its current state, to produce any kind of scientific insight. This is why it is a red flag.Ariel31459The Hypocryphal


 * The problem is that Peterson doesn't seem to agree that it's incomprehensible, but rather thinks he comprehends it in terms of consciousness creating reality. In any case, it doesn't make sense to give Peterson the benefit of the doubt just because he lacks a background in physics. The article on Deepak Chopra, for example, does not give him a pass on his quantum woo just because he's an endocrinologist. Peterson's statements are his own, and seeing as he lacks expertise in the subject he shouldn't have made them. Mrtonysinclair (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a problem. But it is one unrelated to my edit. I am not forgiving him for not knowing QM. I am, at least in this talk page, demonstrating why he is wrong, and not simply pointing and guffawing, under the pretense of understanding his error.Ariel31459The Hypocryphal
 * That's like saying it's somehow coded in all the social sciences to have a crash course on deliberately bad quantum science education. Which is a whole other can of worms. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Adding to that, it's a weird categorization to begin with. Ariel, you're telling me it's impossible that a social scientist can understand physics? You're telling me that there's no social scientist out there who understands physics, let alone that becoming a social scientist naturally precludes one from understanding physics? Come on now. Next you're going to start digging up cliches about how one can't be a scientist and a novelist. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I will presume you are not kidding. Physicists say they don't understand it in the sense that traditional physical science is understood. Clearly you have never studied it. This is no pass for Peterson. Ariel31459The Hypocryphal
 * Obviously it's no pass for Peterson. That's the point. His misunderstanding of quantum physics is his own problem, his background in psychology be damned. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that he is a psychologist talking about QM is the proof he is talking woo. The psychologists you might agree with can't do it either. That, dear user, is the point. It is how we know he is wrong.Ariel31459The Hypocryphal
 * No, him not understanding quantum physics is how we know he's wrong. Obviously the average psychologist won't understand quantum physics if only because they typically won't venture beyond their own expertise, but that doesn't preclude any one of them from speaking on it or seeking to understand it on their own. That's throwing away the keys before a trial. Peterson chose to speak on it and he spoke on it in error. He should be judged for his own sins. What you're saying is an argument akin to, "Obama is evil because SOCIALISM!!!!!oneoneeleven." James Earl Cash (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * James you have failed to understand the point. Peterson does not understand QM vis a vis what it can be used for and neither do you from what I am able to discover. He has not admitted it, and, it seems, neither have you. You'll just have to ask Fuzzy or another administrator to agree with you. I will concede only then.Ariel31459The Hypocryphal
 * No fucking shit I don't understand quantum mechanics and Peterson sure as fuck don't either. How does one's background factor into this again? Because his ignorance is likely a case of him being him. The same way he's able to cast doubt on women in Hollywood coming out about sexual harassment and the same way he thinks you need religion in order to be a moral person. Fuck him. Don't lump other psychologists in with his stupidity. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The more I think about it, this is practically an argument from ignorance. Most users here can't attest why he's wrong about quantum physics, so let's make up something about his background to validate it. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, could you lend me a hand here? Ariel is deliberately clogging this article up with bad writing to dump all over social scientists, when the point here is Peterson himself. This is practically guilt by association. For a wiki that praises science and truth, we're seriously going to entertain this nonsense? James Earl Cash (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Jungian Pseudoscience
Seeing as the purpose of Rationalwiki includes "analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement" and "documenting the full range of crank ideas", the section on Jungian pseudoscience should include Peterson's statements regarding the Jungian concept of "synchronicity". Some examples:. As far as an explanation of the concept of synchronicity, and the reasons why it is pseudoscience, I recommend The Skeptic Enclyclopedia of Pseudoscience, pages 240-242 (pgs 257-259 of the pdf) and  The Skeptics's Dictionary. Mrtonysinclair (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 217.119.171.154 (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The idea of synchronicity is not scientific. Indeed it requires a lack of causal connection for a event to be considered synchronistic. It is a psychological concept, not one of physical science. It would be pseudo-scientific if one claimed synchronicity could be used to predict some phenomenon or other. Any idea can be misapplied to science. For example, postmodernism is not pseudo-scientific. But, it is pseudo-scientific (as Chomsky has pointed out), to suggest that people in the past could not have died from diseases that were not at that time known, because disease is a social construct.Ariel31459The Hypocryphal
 * Those are bad reasons to not consider it pseudoscience. First of all, synchronicity is not just about psychological phenomena, but also about physical phenomena that correlate with psychological phenomena (such as the beetle tapping at the window in Jung's example that was cited by the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience). Jung also tried to use it as an explanation for ESP experiments (as the Skeptic Encyclopedia also mentions) which seems to be one context in which it would make predictions. While the predictions it makes (outside of ESP experiments) are generally too imprecise to test, this is actually a big part of what makes it pseudoscience, as it is effectively unfalsifiable. Synchronicity has been on Rationalwiki's list of pseudosciences since 2007 and is also classified as a pseudoscience on wikipedia as well as by the skeptic community in general. Its status as pseudoscience is uncontroversial as far as paranormal topics go. If you really want to go against the entire skeptic community and the precedent set by Rationalwiki since the beginning perhaps you should take it up with the mods, otherwise I suggest you stop arguing in bad faith and stop trying to protect Peterson from well-documented and warranted criticism. Mrtonysinclair (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Synchronicity is a concept: synchronicity is a concept and is intransitive, it does nothing. It explains nothing. It is the name of a psychological phenomena, and that is, the tendency to think that a coincidence is significant. For example, if you are a gambler, and notice the same number, say 12, in various places during your day. You then think, "that number might be lucky!" That is synchronicity. No. It is not pseudoscience to believe in it, just not smart. But people do believe in it. That is why there is a psychological term for it. Someone needs false notions as examples to fill in a book on pseudoscience and there you have it.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting synchronicity to make it seem more mundane and less paranormal than Jung (or Peterson) meant it. Synchronicity is not a term for the tendency to think that coincidences are meaningful -- if that were the case, Jung would not have cited it as an explanation for (supposed) cases of ESP. Rather, it is a term meant to explain the coincidences themselves, not merely the belief that coincidences are meaningful. Jung proposed synchronicity as an "explanatory principle" meant to explain events rather than simply giving a name to belief that coincidences are meaningful. That's why the Skeptic Encyclopedia defined it as follows: "(1) the coincidence of a mental state (idea, feeling, image) with a simultaneous external event that corresponds in some meaningful way to the mental state; (2) the same correspondence of a mental state and a simultaneous external, meaningfully connected event, with the latter being outside of the observer’s field of perception; and (3) a meaningful coincidence of a mental state with some future event." That is: it's not just about mental states, it's also about the external world. It is decidedly paranormal and pseudoscientific. Mrtonysinclair (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Go to your own reference in Wikipedia. Synchronicity is not described in the way you suggest. The body of the article nowhere refers to Pseudoscience. After the reference table there is a link to the Wiki article on pseudoscience. No category link. Yes, Jung investigated paranormal implications of some synchronicity. He also discussed these ideas with Wolfgang Pauli and Albert Einstein, who to my knowledge, did not tell him that he was talking nonsense.Ariel31459Wait...there's more?
 * Some of the other pseudoscience topics (such as the Hollow Earth theory) also lack the category link so perhaps they forgot to add it. Either way, they added the pseudoscience table for a reason. The wikipedia article does say that synchronicity is about events, rather than merely being about beliefs, so if that's your best objection given the sources I've cited, I don't think you have much of a case. Even if Einstein and Pauli discussed their own ideas with Jung, its a mistake to assume this legitimizes it, as there are plenty are other examples of legitimate science inspiring pseudoscience (e.g. quantum woo). Mrtonysinclair (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ariel has this weird defense of Peterson: "he's not using pseudoscientific (falsifiable and falsified) concepts, he's using nonscientific (unfalsifiable) concepts". Of course, any reasonable definition of pseudoscience also includes the use of nonscientific concepts -- much of intelligent design is unfalsifiable, and is therefore more pseudoscientific for it. 21:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What is a "defense" of Peterson? Is it that you think the object here is to make Peterson seem as ridiculous as possible? What do you even mean by a defense? Defend him from what? He is a scientist whose production in the social media-market is so enormous he occasionally says really silly things. I would say he could be compared to an evangelical of his own version of the academy. I try to accurately describe him and I get this horseshit from you, that I am trying to defend him? What is that about? Am I a lawyer? Someone should get a bill.Ariel31459妈的！
 * I can only speak for myself, but the object is not to make him as ridiculous as possible - if it were, I'd post the short stories he wrote in grad school, or add details of how he doesn't understand technology, blames google and facebook when he forgets his password, how gets into arguments with twitter bots, and so on. I've ommitted such details because I want to focus on issues related to RW's mission. I instead looked at some of the articles listed under the "Best of Rationalwiki" and have tried to follow their model. Many of them make their subjects look quite ridiculous indeed, and use quite a bit of humor. Your edits, on the other hand, have consistently tried to downplay,  or remove legitimate criticisms of Peterson, made excuses for him, and tried to eliminate every trace of humor from the article.
 * I'd also like to point out that the silly things Peterson says - including the pseudoscientific statements in particular - form a repeated pattern, and are not merely isolated incidents. Peterson is much more willing to integrate mysticism and religion in his work than a typical scientist, and most of his crazier statements are a natural consequence of that. Mrtonysinclair (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Seeing patterns where none exist is a hallmark of pseudoscience. Congratulations. Consider the review of Peterson's first book by the Courtesy Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oregon. No mention of pseudoscience.Fuzzzzzzy! Karl Popper is the philosopher who introduced the concept falsifiability in scientific epistemology.
 * "Karl Popper described the demarcation problem as the “key to most of the fundamental problems in the philosophy of science”. He rejected verifiability as a criterion for a scientific theory or hypothesis to be scientific, rather than pseudoscientific or metaphysical." Food for thought.Ariel31459Asskicking done cheap

Reorganizing the social conservatism section
I think it might be a good idea to merge Peterson's statements on binding marriage agreements into the section on "support for stricter gender roles" and split the sexual harassment stuff into a new section. I think this would keep the article more organized and also more topical considering that the #MeToo movement and Peterson's statements regarding sexual harassment have gotten a lot of publicity lately. I'll wait a few days to see if anyone has any better suggestions though. Mrtonysinclair (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

more about pseudoscience of which you may still be unaware.
So, now we know via Popper that unfalsifiable does not imply pseudoscientific. This extract from THE STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY, Science and Pseudoscience, Section 3, pretty much agrees with my perspective on Peterson. Pseudoscience has been used as a disparaging term since the 18th century. It is not used indiscriminately by recognized authorities in philosophy: "All non-science is not pseudoscience, and science has non-trivial borders to other non-scientific phenomena, such as metaphysics, religion, and various types of non-scientific systematized knowledge. Mahner proposed the term “parascience” to cover non-scientific practices that are not pseudoscientific. Science also has the internal demarcation problem of distinguishing between good and bad science. A comparison of the negated terms related to science can contribute to clarify the conceptual distinctions. “Unscientific” is a narrower concept than “non-scientific” (not scientific), since the former but not the latter term implies some form of contradiction or conflict with science. “Pseudoscientific” is in its turn a narrower concept than “unscientific”. The latter term differs from the former in covering inadvertent mismeasurements and miscalculations and other forms of bad science performed by scientists who are recognized as trying but failing to produce good science."Ariel31459'und dein Shyster-Anwalt auch'
 * That section does not verify anything you've said since you've failed to classify whether Peterson is being non-scientific or pseudo-scientific. You haven't accurately defined which he falls into. Additionally, I'd be wary of taking Popper's word at face value or even if it's at all representative of science. I'm a bit rusty since I took a philosophy of science course ten years ago, but there are a LOT of people in the field who disagree with him via falsification. Kuhn provided a pretty good alternative to the whole complicated business of falsification. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I love the smell of bullshit in the morning! There is no consensus, so you are wrong to assert it as fact.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Mate, here's a thought, perhaps you should properly educate yourself on the philosophy of science before parroting random quotes and philosophies without understanding them one iota. Because you've made it clear you don't actually understand what you're talking about, especially if your solution here is to scream out Popper's name like he's one of the Beatles. James Earl Cash (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. So, we should just take your word on that? You are an expert are you? We hear "educate yourself," quite a lot from the uneducated.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Climate denialism
On the new section. While it is disturbing that Peterson seems to be associating with some form of resistance to recognizing the global warming phenomena, is he just retweeting contrarian opinions? Is this section, so far, no more than a weak argument implying he himself is a denialist? Its incompleteness is consistent with such an interpretation. My hypothesis is that Peterson is trying to attract the attention of those sympathetic to the denialist position. I think that is significantly different from being an incorrigible denialist, though still perhaps worthy of criticism.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * it's just noting who he tweets about and what he says about those tweets 19:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you RT climate denier shit without any additional comment (like pointing out how stupid it is), you deserve criticism. 19:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. But this is little more than pointing something unstated out. Are we to imagine the details ourselves? Where is the criticism?Ariel31459 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do think Peterson's tweets are evident enough to suggest that his views on climate change do not directly stem from the scientific literature, as they should for any scientific topic, but rather from climate change denial blogs. He has also stated in a discussion that he is "skeptical of the climate models" so this section is worth remaining on RationalWiki. It's a shame that Peterson, a high credential psychologist, whom refers to the scientific literature to discuss psychology, does not apply the same method when discussing climate change. If only he knew how dishonest and shitty the content of these climate change denial blogs were, I'd hope he would cease to pay them any attention. But alas, he is a psychologist, not a climatologist, and as long as he maintains the "refer to the peer-reviewed literature" approach for psychology matters, I will not immediately label him a pseudointellectual, although admittedly his sources for his views on climate change are crap. --Moobnert (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Associating with climate denialism is political red flag, not a scientific one. He is not a climatologist. You appear to be comfortable criticizing Peterson on this topic. Why don't you try to improve the section? Peterson may use ostensible support for denialism in self promotion, which is, I think, the only point.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is much to improve in the section. It's stated quite clearly, "petersons tweets tend to downplay or deny global warming" which is verifiably accurate. The section then provides examples of his tweets. All of them come from climate change denial blogs. I agree he's not a climatologist, but he is an advocate of utilizing the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and in this instance, he's not doing that. --Moobnert (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Gay Marriage section
I wanted to make these edits:

- Reference the proper source (current source [100] is wrong)

- Include a sentence indicating Peterson's remark to gay marriage as a means to integrate gay people into society as 'probably a good thing'

This section should also be renamed to 'Views on gay marriage' rather than 'opposition'. The source itself shows Peterson making points that seem to be both for and/or against gay marriage. Peterson himself admits the ambiguity of his position by saying "Those are my views; I know they're confused" - Therefore, I don't think anyone can 'rationally' determine if his views are evidently in favor or against gay marriage. --Moobnert (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure who to ping about this so I chose one of the first users I saw on this Talk; maybe you have an answer. The Peterson Page is locked from editing, which is unusual for a RW Page. Whatever the reason behind it, it means only a select group of RW editors can make any changes. I'm not sure who to contact as a result. I would want to see the aforementioned section updated for accuracy, as I've argued its current description is misleading. Perhaps an edit or an argument nullifying my reasoning for allowing the edit is warranted. Are you able to assist? --Moobnert (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, ! Usually, if something is marked as protected, it means one or more people have been vandalizing it, and the page is protected in an effort to dissuade any future vandalisms. If you feel as if some information in the article is incorrect, please contact the page's creator or anyone else with sufficient access to the page. LCRex   (poses menacingly)  15:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The restriction on the article you refered to limits editing to autoconfirmed. You are autoconfirmed, so you should be able to edit the page.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The DNA thing gets worse
https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/998598765144625154 19:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * GDI, I was about to post this.
 * Still, you should see the comments on Reddit's /r/JordanPeterson about this clip. He simply can never be wrong. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No Fuzzy: your understanding gets worse. No proof is mentioned by Peterson. More like bullshit intuition. " I wouldn't say I believe that" is an exact quote for you to take to the cat box.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

32 answers to the question, for FCP
"In 2013, among his 32 answers to the question, "If you could write a rule book for being a man, what 'man law' would you write," Peterson included the following dictates" What's wrong with including all 32 answers? They are very short. You seem to be whitewashing your own opinions.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't do this. It's a violation of Peterson's copyright to post large extracts of his work, particularly if it's more than is needed for criticism or analysis. --Gospatric (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What makes you say that the short list of 32 brief sentences is more than needed? I don't think he would object. The list has been on Reddit for more than a year.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Posting all 32 is unnecessary -- it should be obvious to readers that we excluded irrelevant rules (eg, we noted that there were 32 and listed only 6; the numbers have large gaps between them), and they can follow the reference to read them if they choose. 18:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. But I will add and subtract a few to round out the perspective. You seem to have included koan-like old-testment propositions that will only perplex the unwary. By the way.Oprah advised students to "make your bed," in  her USC commencement speech. Go Celtics! Ariel31459 (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Peterson gains a new fanclub.
Apparently Peterson said some things during an (New York Times) interview back on the eighteenth that drove the Incels into a frenzy of adoration. We should likely add a section on this latest development. 23:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this?. Also, there is no article on incels. If they are not significant enough to have an article, why bother?. I never heard of incel until an NPR story broadcast a few weeks ago. Are they different from angry MGTOWS? Maybe stick it there.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am, and no Incels are not the same as Miggies. Incels are basically woman hating losers who are either unaware of the concept of prostitution, or are unwilling to partake of such services. 00:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition we probably should create an article on Incels, given that they have both embraced the anti-semitism of the Alt-right and actually celebrate several mass shooters as "heros". 00:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Devil's advocate, maybe they don't want to get involved with illegal services? There are plenty of people who only refrain from cocaine and such because it's illegal (and unregulated and thus more dangerous) rather than because of any sense of morality.  Knew a girl who wouldn't drink underage but got sloshed when she studied abroad.
 * Or the more obvious answer of course is that incels tend to be introverts or antisocial, and thus less likely to run in the circles that would connect them to a prostitute to begin with... CoryUsar (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I could argue that your reply is covered under the wording of my statement, however even if I did it would be clear that such sentiments were unintentional. I thank you for pointing out in the latter part of your response that many of the most virulent Incels are extremely antisocial. 16:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As general comments, while the above may be a factors, I'm fairly sure there are incels in NZ. Prostitution has been legal here (yes even for the customer) since 2003. Probably partly as a result, you'd have to be pretty incompetent with internet use not to be able to find a sex worker. (I've never tested the theory, but I quite doubt the pages I've come across are fake/scams. Then there's the traditional media/internet cross e.g. paper classifieds.) I wouldn't be completely surprised if you could find someone and arrange a home visit solely over the internet or SMS. Of course you'd still have to put up with someone visiting you, although again I wouldn't be completely surprised if you could find someone who'd be willing to communicate via phone even at home. Actually, while the legal issues may be factors, my impression is in a lot of the western world, you don't really need to hang out in specific circles to connect to prostitutes. E.g. before the recent crack down on backpage, it was a common avenue for a lot of the US. Maybe things are a little harder at the moment (no pun intended), but incels long predated the problems backpage have had. And from what I've read incels tend to have their own places to hang out. It surely only takes one remotely smart one who can figure out how to find prostitutes to tell the rest. Nil Einne (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The fallacy of approval and incels.
"Peterson's fanbase is extremely dedicated and has overlap with the incel and MGTOW circles." This statement is ostensibly true. Peterson's fanbase is rather large and includes dedicated followers. I don't think incels have a club house yet. It is well known, for example, that Joseph Stalin admired actor Clark Gable, just for the kind of guy he was. Peterson evidently appeals to elements of both sides of the liberal/conservative divide, mostly on the conservative side, as well as eccentric outliers. As far as MGTOWS, I think Peterson called them "pathetic weasels."Ariel31459 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it matters more about the size of Peterson's crowd and intended audience. I think that how he attracts incels is relevant because he has a few ideas many people would call sexist (or at least I would call sexist), shown in the article. Peterson tried denouncing the Miggies, but he's not taking much consideration why he is attracting them, and as long as he continues with those viewpoints, he's going to receive them. That a famous actor has charmed Stalin, it doesn't mean that much to me, though maybe I will look more into it. I don't know if the actor was able to attract substantial numbers of Communist for his socio-political views. 14:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is that it is specious reasoning to associate a person with an admirer, beyond the fact of stating the admiration exists. In this case, of Peterson, it suggests maybe some of these people can be deterred from the destructive path they have been following (incel & mgtow). Peterson's intended audience is, I think, just about everyone who will listen. The fact is that Peterson has not praised these two groups, and has criticized them: "If every women you approach rejects you, the problem is not with them buddy!" (paraphrase of JP) Ariel31459 (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * yeah that's great thanks - David Gerard (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Listen, David, I know why this guy can't be acceptable to most RW users. I promise not to post false statements about him, or try to remove true ones. I'll let you be the judge.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not important to me that you choose to ignore the facts. You already have that reputation. Good luck with that.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

All Meat Diet
Yes it's ad hominem, but I think it would be worth adding that Peterson is on a literal all meat diet, as he talks about on Joe Rogan. It just contributes to the whole extremist woo thing he's got going on. I don't really know how to edit Wikis so I'll leave you all to it if you think it's worthy to add.


 * Ya, I just came here to say it needs to be added. I'll put something quick in the woo section, but I don't really have much time to do much.  Here's the article on The Atlantic.  He says that while on the diet, simply deviating a little (drinking apple cider) was enough to make him unable to sleep for 25 days, due to extreme anxiety!  This man needs help.Brianpansky (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * So first let me just say that the All Meat Diet is a terrible idea, I mentioned it in passing to my doctor because of a coincidence and the speed at which he said absolutely not was hysterical. However, I have a sleep disorder where I can sleep up to 20 hours per day and not wake rested. My doctor knew a patient who had met with a research doctor at The Emory Sleep Center doing research on a disorder similar to what I was experiencing, who had also found two potential medications to alleviate symptoms.


 * Flew down to Atlanta, Georgia to meet with The Emory Sleep Center doctor whose name I won't give because it's unnecessary. EDIT: I incorrectly got names mixed up and upon finding the original case's name, it was not a Peterson. Then came a lumbar puncture procedure to get cerebrospinal fluid for testing, and afterwards I had met enough of the symptoms to try the two antibiotics that some patients had responded positively to.


 * They sadly did not work for me, it took a while longer to start figuring out what was going on - but the doctor behind idiopathic hypersomnia is in no way a quack. I'm sure that people are flocking to this new, barely researched, and wide encompassing disorder that can only be diagnosed by lumbar puncture (even then, only like 80% of people have the neurotransmitters tested for) because that is fertile ground for woo. Mentioning the doctor's medical and research credentials and methods (good old fashioned boring takes a long time science) and that he did not cripple us with any cost feels the right thing to do, given that now Peterson & Co. are pushing their near baseless diet woo. Gross negligence to the public.
 * Eponymous (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you have narcolepsy? Lumbar puncture results indicating < 1 or undetectable levels of the orexin/hypocretin neurotransmitter are expected in narcolepsy. Studies have identified streptococcal infections (i.e. strep) for triggering an autoimmune response which attacks the hypocretin cells in populations with the genetic marker associated with narcolepsy and cataplexy (though other autoimmune triggers are possible, too). (side note: the distinction between the diagnostic limitations of the 'science' in psychology in contrast to the demonstrably conclusive science in the medical field of neuroscience. Similar to how all squares are also rectangles...but many rectangles can never be called squares; neuroscientists are qualified in the field of psychology, but for those whose sole credential is in the field of psychology can never claim to be a neuroscientist). Byebyebonaventura (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * oops. Somehow overlooked you'd already indicated an IH diagnosis. Which explains the lumbar puncture, since polysomnography is usually sufficient to diagnose narcolepsy. Byebyebonaventura (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Selling diet information is a major form of quackery. If Peterson is doing something like that, it is worthy of critique. On the other hand, if Peterson is just asserting that a particular meat diet (no details) has helped him become healthier, then it is not advisable to dispute such a subjective assessment. Hug your pet chicken and hope for the best.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * His daughter is explicitly a diet quack riding his coattails. He just believes his own bullshit, and doesn't sell anything about it.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Unless you want to do a kind of "original sin" thing, should she have her own article? If He's not selling it, it isn't an issue here. (and we all believe in our own bs)Ariel31459 (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * She does not meet the wiki standards defining a notable person, so, no she should not have her own article. should I have my own article? Of course not. Byebyebonaventura (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I dunno. "Here's this pseudoscience I totally and completely believe" combined with an immediate relative who sells that exact same pseudoscience as a product?  It's not disconnected entirely in the way you're implying.  It's still pitching the bullshit to gullible people, you know, the harm that medical pseudoscience actually causes comes in there.  That someone he's connected to benefits personally is hard to overlook given the harm of convincing people to believe in quackery.  It's not the same as genetic sin, and I'd prefer we discuss it in terms of actual COI, not some abstraction of "sin".  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know either, though despite your denial you may know something about this. Is he advocating "use this diet!" where he tells you where to go to buy the thing? If there is no money involved, it is of dubious interest. You sound like you don't need a diet. Maybe I do. I'd like to lose 50 pounds.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't do this one. You'll get fuckin scurvy.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a fact-based article about her involvement.Just add scorn.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh there's leafy greens too. That's, in my understanding, actually enough to prevent scurvy, if eaten in bulk.  The missing vitamins are much more obscure ones instead.  Calcium, maybe.  E or B, perhaps.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few articles about the health risks of the diet, but the key issue here is that she is promoting this diet as a solution to the 'diet based cause' of a good deal of illnesses without any evidence backing it or medical education in the area. Worse, she is charging a pretty high price for it. I would say it warrants a separate article as aside from her father mentioning the diet it seems to be her enterprise.Eponymous (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure the diet is generally a bad idea. I suggest you read the article in the link I gave. Peterson isn't charging for specific dietary advice, she is charging for a testimonial report to people who are curious about her situation. She is taking advantage of her father's fame and charging $75 for personal interviews. $75 for a personal interview is not very much. I don't see it as particularly harmful. If she were selling materials advancing the diet to the general public, that would be bad.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Media Misrepresentation
They should have a section for that, which will partly help to explain why his fans are so easily activated in online circles. 98.113.215.216 (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Krashlia
 * Like, media fawning over him too? 19:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure media is just falling head over heels in love with him whenever they talk about the "Darling of the Alt-Right". Because thats who they support in the end, the Neo-Nazis. Right? 98.113.215.216 (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Krashlia
 * I have no idea what you are on about. Traditionally, the written media required the ability to write coherently in one's native language, show up to work every day, and not much else. They are never very good at representing anything really complicated. With some effort, you can get the facts, eventually. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No-News-Is-Bad-News, i.e. any media coverage, is always good. Specifically meaning, those they're *not* giving media coverage, is who they're not supporting. Describing him in the most provocative way possible, is absolutely supportive of him (entirely so -not merely "in the end").


 * Undeniably so, when the media misrepresentations choose not to mention how he comes to be the only panel member at planned multi-speaker forums. If the media neglects reporting doxxing and terroristic threats have persuaded confirmed panel members to cancel their participation (an undeniable silencing of their freedom of expression, by criminal means) --then yes, he's absolutely being misrepresented by the media. Hell, he can retire from his shamefully disingenuous self-promotion at this point.


 * Hopefully, "in the end," he'll be criminally charged and convicted for his criminal acts against credible academics. His resorting to escalating to criminal offence his desperate Westboro Baptist Church-reminiscent tactics to make himself saleable to the publishers who'd been rejecting his self-help manuscript the last 15 years is unconscionable.


 * He only "offends" the principles of honesty snd academic integrity. If it weren't for the criminal terroristic threats he's made to silence the freedom of expression of academics invited to panel forums --scarcely few would be angered by this hack. A few of my students had originally advocated with passionate appeals from emotion on his behalf. Apparently they did their homework after they'd been encouraged to do a little probing? Imagine my surprise to find each had emailed me following his most recent book-hawking stint on their hero JR's show --and were universally irritated JR fell for his charade again. Byebyebonaventura (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if your "students" understand what the hell you are talking about, because I do not.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)