Talk:Jordan Peterson

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>

All Meat Diet[edit]

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. — Unsigned, by: 97.122.99.56 / talk

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 ๐Ÿ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 ๐Ÿ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 ๐ŸBleat at me 15:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed 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 ๐Ÿ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[edit]

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? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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)

Cross-outs in first sentence of article.[edit]

@TheSocktor On documenting and critiquing the claims made by Peterson with respect to his various areas of expertise: This cross out technique does not belong in the first sentence. If I hady it would never be used. It clogs up the article at the very beginning. The counterclaims are a matter of semantics. Psychologists are not biologists, but they may well be well informed. Furthermore, biologists may not understand or accept the applications of biology out side of their own expertise. These points should actually be presented and defended in the text if they are not wholly facetious. Perhaps create a new section.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, it's relevant because his idiot fans are obsessed with making arguments from authority, rather than specifically asserting that non-experts cannot understand things ever. He's kinda the ultimate ultracrepidarian constantly being just utterly wrong on things he should understand, then branching off into complete pseudoscience further afield along the way. You definitely don't do yourself any credit by invoking the Courtier's Reply about Myers to undercut criticism on your pet pseudo-scientist. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 17:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I think the cross-outs are fine. Peterson is not an appropriate authority to cite about either of those two nor does he state claims that either of those two experts agree on. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you care much about the readability of the article. Crossouts are neither humorous nor informative. They ruin the flow of any article. Also, two scientists disagreeing with another scientist on minor points is not noteworthy in itself, especially when it amounts to a credentials piss-off. It it quotidian. @Ikanreed Peterson does not offend me. I expect he does you. He clearly offends many people who frequent this wiki. I do not intend to troll them or you. I think the phenomenon of Peterson's appearance is interesting and significant. Although you may regard him as a pseudo-scientist, this is not generally how he is regarded among scientists. My suggestion is to create a section capturing such awkward claims as can be found. However a psychologist who refers to himself as a biologist is at worst immodest. Since he has published a number of experimental papers, it is more prolix than improper to refer to him as a neuroscientist. Disapprobation is never an excuse for bad style. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This still doesn't change the fact that he isn't an evolution biologist or a neuroscientist. If he simply said "I know a lot about evolutionary biology" or "I know a lot about neuroscience" then it wouldn't be as much of an issue (though I guess as an actual evolution biologist (like Myers) or neuroscientist might have a thing or two to say about it). Psychologists may indeed be well informed about biology, but the key word there is may. Your dentist may be well-informed about orthopaedics, but that still doesn't mean speaking to your dentist about your cracked rib is a good idea.

Are you seriously telling me that Jordan Peterson, who has spent over half of his life studying psychology cannot differentiate his field from evolutionary biology or neuroscience? I mean I know this is somewhat anecdotal, but I've spent the last two years of my life working as forklift operator, and not even in my drunkest conversations have I said to somebody "I'm a crane operator" or "I'm a truck driver". To anybody with half a brain it's patently obviously what happened - Peterson falsely claimed to be qualified in fields of academia he is not qualified in in order to make a false appeal to authority, knowing full well his fans are gullible enough to take his claims at face value.TheSocktor (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

My problem is with your notion of being qualified. A leading authority on the life and work of Thomas Huxley was a very good family friend: Charles Blinderman, a professor of English, at a small New England University. Work makes one qualified. Work.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
So Peterson is a very good family friend of evolutionary biology and neuroscience?TheSocktor (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
?Ariel31459 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that was my exact reaction to your post.TheSocktor (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I think I was fairly clear. What puzzles you, friend. I am going to stop here if you are just angry.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not in the slightest bit angry, I'm just a bit bewildered. What relevance does Thomas Huxley's friend have here? Evolutionary biology and neuroscience are not people. Yes, you might learn a few basic concepts about them from being in the presence of people who are evolutionary biologists or neuroscientists but still doesn't make you an authority on the subject any more than the fact I'm close friends with a teacher and a medical researcher makes me qualified to teach or research medicine. I mean, I'm sorry if I'm strawmanning you here but I really don't understand what you're trying to tell me.TheSocktor (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I am trying to tell you that you can not place people in categories of epistemological expertise based on their major subject. I knew an English professor who became an expert in an aspect of evolutionary biology. What were his credentials? Work. I should add that, he told me of being held in low regard by members of the University's biology department. Yet, he was eventually given a second office there as an adjunct professor of biology. You see, university biologists, as with all scholars, are experts not in their general field, but in very narrow sets of subjects subtending the general topic, such as the study of a particular species of primate, fish, or insect. I am pointing out the lacuna in your argument. not having to do with Peterson, but a general problem with respect to using arbitrary standards to disqualify opinions. I really don't blame you, on the other hand, because it is unusual to find even really smart people who avoid this particular problem. The AMA standard for credentials may have been necessary to prevent loss of life, otherwise, not so much. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Can I take a moment to shit on Ariel's source[edit]

This is irrelevant to changing the article because it was included as part of a whataboutism argument anyways, but I did some looking into the evolution institute, linked by Ariel. They're funded almost entirely by the John Templeton Foundation, which has a very public history of funding creationist papers to muddy the waters about evolution, and creating citation bait for public debate. Which is how most skeptics know of them

What's that you say? If they're a creationist org why are they funding a pro-evolution blog with an attached database of information about evolution? Well there's the weeds of it. The evolution institute only kinda vaguely brushes on evolution when it's convenient for their real mission, which seems to be publishing pro-Christianity social science research. By which I don't mean apologetics, but generating as much material as possible on the social value of Church, religious belief(especially in Jesus). In spite of the nominal goal of using evolution for social good, they still can't resist doing a bit of the old water muddying, like this kind of thing where they purposefully conflate social darwinism with evolution, and later goes on to say that darwin was good, because he was judeo christian. It might be worth a pass to make sure we don't cite them too much elsewhere. They're not bad per se; they hire real scientists for real research after all, but they should maybe be addressed with a degree of extra skepticism, given charges that the Templeton foundation has done a bit of the old "your future grants depend on current results" thing according to critics. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 14:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Follow up, we cite them in one other article, and it seems to be a relatively okay place to cite a source of that kind, talking about the history of "Descent of Man" and how it was overconflated with evolution. Prolly okay. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 15:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not vouching for the source myself. It should be viewed as just another cherry-picked article. We all swoon into them eventually. You already know the relevant epistemology.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I mean, honestly, I think the way you used your source in that comment was not particularly relevant to your central point, so all this was a personal rabbit hole tangent on "who the fuck is this .org and what is their slant?"
Also, I don't get why you're invoking epistemology. The fundamental arbitration of truth and knowledge is pretty disconnected from the topic at hand? And it doesn't seem to be why we're taking a dump on Jordan Peterson's very questionable expertise. Unless you're going to bat for his presuppositionalism, where's it a fundamental question; I'll throw down on the epistemology of that any day. It's a trash idea for kids taking philosophy 101 in a seminary school. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 16:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure, it was an arbitrary choice of supportive media text. This the the standard for this wiki, not unlike the references supporting the crossouts: by relatively low status academics. I did not invoke epistemology, I demurred. I don't think Peterson is a presuppositionalist in the sense that Christianity is the fundamentally true doctrine. I think his assumption is something like religion is required for culture to flourish: the west has Christianity, other regions have other presuppositions. But, when it comes to religion, nobody really knows what other people believe.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
(I meant you wrote the word epistemology in a sentence and I couldn't fathom why) I went out of my way to avoid anti-Peterson people saying he was a presuppositionalist, as it's pretty easy to see how the internet memeifies statements about people as truth. Instead, I found a presuppositionalist christian vlogger, documenting how he thinks Jordan Peterson clearly believes in presuppositionalism. Here you go(everything about the site is just unbearable, though, from the design to every "related post"). You'd think it was satire, from the obsessive fanboyism reaching a creepy level, but no, it's real. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 18:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I see. So, I am not surprised that a presuppositionalist finds Peterson's views compatible with his own. This is typical of all religionists, I think: if you don't say bad things about me and my beliefs, you can be one of us. Very few religions are not accomodating in this way. As a philosopher, I can see how this might be unacceptable, to you. But it is the presup's error to make that assumption. I don't think I am telling you something you are unaware of. Why would Peterson do this? Lots of therapists are like that. Freud denied religion. Jung never said a word against it ( I think).Ariel31459 (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, famously not just spouting off personal speculation about how the human mind works psychologists Freud and Jung. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 14:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Jung's paradigm is pervasive in therapy: "you can stay in that walking daydream of religion. That's not the main problem." About this specifically, I remain agnostic.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm just here to add that Ariel, I saw your source earlier, scoffed at it, and promptly forgot about it. I read it and ikanreed described it as Courtier's Reply, but despite that label, I found it to be not helpful at all. It just says "PZ Meyers doesn't know how complex things are" and "he can just sum religion's harmful effects up with one word: WOMEN" but he doesn't proceed to explain why PZ Meyers is wrong or strawmanning, and is PZ Meyers really arguing that? The counterargument is "but sexual conflict in the animal world, look at Bonobos, so religion isn't a factor here", which completely dismisses religion's impact. So blah blah blah another topic. I wouldn't use that particular source for anything except to laugh at it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You are clearly not following me at all Lefty. Of course the source is just more internet palaver. Although that wasn't the original point.The crossout sources were more of the same. You are, in effect, trying to change the subject. Ariel31459 (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
No, when I created a subsection with a new subject line, I was trying to change the subject. They responded to that. Seems okay to me? ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 14:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
OK.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

God, really?[edit]

"His statements are notoriously incoherent and ambiguous, which allows him to handwave criticism as mere misrepresentations of his views." Jesus, fucking 1/10 see me after class. — Unsigned, by: 174.29.49.197 / talk / contribs

This is entirely accurate description of one of his primary problems. Framing everything in caveats, and especially nonsensical caveats is like an infinite pile of Escape hatches. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 15:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Not accurate to say it is a problem to say, everything is contingent. That is a valid perspective of philosophy. Loads of philosophers don't like it because it makes their assumptions contingent as well.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
But that's not what he says. Everything being contingent on complexities would be an entirely fair (and, shock, horror postmodernist) perspective. And would maybe invalidate gross generalizations like basing the entirety of human society on one or two documented behaviors of lobsters. No, he often delivers specific contingencies that have no bearing on the things he's actually saying.
โ€œโ€You may say well dragons donโ€™t exist. Itโ€™s, like, yes they do โ€” the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. Itโ€™s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, โ€˜Well, thereโ€™s no such thing as witches.โ€™ Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isnโ€™t what you think when you go see a movie about them. You canโ€™t help but fall into these categories. Thereโ€™s no escape from them.
โ€”The guy we're talking about
The qualifications are... pretty nonsensical, even when you understand that he's trying to talk about archetypes, "I know dragons don't exist but some things are dragons" is only technically a qualified statement, and the qualification would, as I said, let you escape hatch questions like "No really, what makes predators dragons? They don't have characterstics x, y, z, q, m, and k." By saying you know they don't exist and "that's not what I meant". But it doesn't actually qualify and circumstantialize the idea that predators are dragons into a specific context where that metaphor helps understand anything. It's pseudo-profound bullshit. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 18:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Man, Peterson is hilarious. Dragons. Witches. There's no escape from them. So true. :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
That statement is backed up by a citation that goes into further detail about Jordan Peterson's obfuscation of arguments. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Peterson seems to make terrible choices when explaining archetypes. I rather think he was pulling the NY Times reporter's leg. He does that quite a lot. Loads of people love it. I can imagine her face.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, postmodernism is quite excellent for generating a critical narrative from what is essentially a non-analytical narrative about an analytical subject: of course it was bullshit. He was trying to see if he could confuse her. Do you think he succeeded?Ariel31459 (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
you mean he was going "lol I wasn't being dumb as shit I was just trolling guize" - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Why David. You old bs-artist. Good to hear from you. I have watched many hours of Peterson's interviews. Does this stuff sound like him? Never mind, I am pretty sure you haven't wasted your time. So let me answer: no. He is a clinical psychologist with 30 years experience. Nellie Bowles' article "Jordan Peterson: Custodian of the Patriarchy..." is well-acknowledged to be a hit piece. Even Bowle's would likely admit she approached the subject in bad faith. Yes, he was fucking with her mind. No, I don't think he helped himself.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
It's an entirely accurate hit piece. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 16:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Bad faith obstructs accuracy. I believe Bowles is experienced in Silicon Valley tech. So, the Times might as well have sent a lawyer to conduct the interview. Not being interested in critical narratives of non-analytical texts, I have no interest in debating non-academic journalism. Try a show of hands. This sort of thing reminds me what is often wrong with these types of articles. They rely too heavily on the conclusions of journalists working outside of areas in which they should be expected to show a high level of confidence.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
It's also in good faith. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 16:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
This is for the record, not intending to win a kewpie doll: There are liberal-biased media articles disagreeing with you,e.g.. Many decline to agree with him about anything, yet call out the bad-faith attacks including the Bowle's article.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
That sure doesn't talk about the citation we use for this at fucking all. Why are you complaining about Bowle? That's a name that doesn't appear in our citations anywhere, and, in spite of the dozens of basically decent articles Meeks(your author) complains about, the Robinson piece we cite for Peterson being a bullshit artist, isn't mentioned at all.
There's some merit in rejecting sources, when they go too far. But rejecting a source we cite because of complaints with a source we don't? That's some next level bullshit ariel. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 17:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
OK. Now I am confused.Bowles is the source of the quote you used in the above quote, and it is the one I am talking about: But witches donโ€™t exist, and they donโ€™t live in swamps, I say.
โ€œYeah, they do. They do exist. They just donโ€™t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons donโ€™t exist. Itโ€™s, like, yes they do โ€” the category predator and the category dragon are the same category."
Now, that is a weird thing to say. I won't try to explain it. But you brought it up buddy. And the article I cited does mention the article Bowles wrote.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see. you're a fucking idiot rejecting a primary source giving an exact quote fully in context because of "bias". Glad we cleared up the misunderstanding I had. I believed that maybe you'd be making that charge in a context where it made any goddamn sense. Like, you know, analysis. Or even attacks on character. But no, we're just talking about the way he uses words, as established by a much more thorough breakdown(that we cite), and your pedantic, tendentious, and obsequious defenses of it that jump from topic to topic and move goalposts like crazy and never establish your own positive case. And it fucking sucks. I'm so sick of pretending that you're engaging honestly. It's so stupid and annoying, and I could go out of my way to grab another illustrative quote of how Peterson speaks, but we both know that you won't engage the central point honestly. You'll find an irrelevant detail, raise an at-best pedantic exception, and any answers to those concerns will only be met with a change of subject and new pedantry. Stop it. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 20:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Ariel's objections remain entirely inane - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
What am I objecting to David? I wonder if you have been paying attention?Ariel31459 (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
As per my reply. You know what you did. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 20:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
As per my reply, you both appear to be deluded.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Times up! I am objecting to amateurs looking to articles written by amateurs to write critical narratives of no earthly use.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't expecting the completely arbitrary topic shift without the pedantic objection. Now the conversation drifts towards the surreal. One piece need bear no relationship to the part before. It's a brave new world of you never acknowledging the point others are making. Dadist argumentation. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 20:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
You idiot. I thought we were just having a conversation. What are trying to do? Save the world?Ariel31459 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Deal with a chronic bullshitter who was pitching bullshit in a thread about cutting sourced content from the article. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 21:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Who is the chronic bullshitter? 174.29.49.197? You might be conflating a couple of different threads here... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
No, ariel is the chronic bullshitter. There's no conflation. The thread had a subject, and a bullshitter came in and bullshitted. Please stop. None of us need two of you shits pedantically arguing explicitly wrong positions just to do so. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 21:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
*proceeds to poop all over things* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜Speaking of the thread's late subject, can we get back on track to discussing it? If Ariel has an objection to the aforementioned line, would he please be so kind as to concisely restate it? RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'll restate my position, even if the statement didn't have a reliable source that lays out a fairly competent case for that exact sentence with lots of further information for those concerned, which it does, it's still pretty self-evident from a cursory examination of claims Peterson has made, whether prepared or off-the-cuff. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 21:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
So please let me know if I am wrong about this, but is your position simply that the line OP mentioned is supported by Peterson's statements? RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
And the citation! ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 22:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
But if his statements are incoherent and ambiguous, how did you manage to very effectively distill a clear and obvious meaning from it? ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm kind of at my limit for devil's advocacy today. We both know how to do that. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 06:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

On a more metaphysical note[edit]

Why would you ask God "really?"? God made it manifest before your very eyes. Of course really. What a silly question. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no, there's a demon that controls all of your perceptions, and merely feeds you lies and truth at its own leisure, and gods truth is obscured to an arbitrary extent. At least there could be. That was descartes' thing. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 06:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, sure, but God still put the demon there. The method of perception is kind of irrelevant. It's all real. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
No john, you are the demons. ikanreed ๐ŸBleat at me 15:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

He's not on Patreon anymore[edit]

He deleted his Patreon account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrZDcEix7uk Thinker(unlicensed) 10:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)