The Fora: A Higher Education Community

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-d-i-e-needs-to-die-this-why

Good riddance to shitty "scholarship".

This is the only way diversity of viewpoint will ever work. Variety and competing institutions.  It is good that at least a few can afford to give up the material benefits extant institutions offer right now. Not all institutions are corrupt, either.

Voters and students will send neo-marxism into the garbage can over time.

"Freedom is always the freedom of the dissenter " —  Rosa Luxemburg

Quote from: dismalist on January 19, 2022, 08:01:49 PM
This is the only way diversity of viewpoint will ever work. Variety and competing institutions.  It is good that at least a few can afford to give up the material benefits extant institutions offer right now. Not all institutions are corrupt, either.

Voters and students will send neo-marxism into the garbage can over time.

"Freedom is always the freedom of the dissenter " —  Rosa Luxemburg

Ordinarily I'd say that is a solution for the individual, Dr. Peterson, and so for all. But he's alleging something much different. It's way more than whether or not he's the right fit for the place or whether it's the right home for him.

'All my craven colleagues must craft DIE statements to obtain a research grant. They all lie (excepting the minority of true believers) and they teach their students to do the same. And they do it constantly, with various rationalizations and justifications, further corrupting what is already a stunningly corrupt enterprise. Some of my colleagues even allow themselves to undergo so-called anti-bias training, conducted by supremely unqualified Human Resources personnel, lecturing inanely and blithely and in an accusatory manner about theoretically all-pervasive racist/sexist/heterosexist attitudes. Such training is now often a precondition to occupy a faculty position on a hiring committee.'

There's nothing wrong with telling a prospective employer or a current one what they want to hear about your personal beliefs, as long as it isn't patently false. But if the true answer would get you fired, despite your already proven ability to do excellent work, it's a corrupt institution.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 19, 2022, 07:36:23 PM
Good riddance to shitty "scholarship".

May I quote you?

Sure. You could also quote pretty much any page from Maps of Meaning, which he submitted as part of his tenure bid, and which is 100% stream-of-consciousness garbage. Also note that he's retired, not resigned.



Or you could just quote Peterson directly. He's got deep views of women, for example:

Quotewomen have a subconscious wish for brutal male domination

Quoteit's unfortunate that men can't control women who say crazy things because they aren't allowed to hit them

Quoteyoung women are outraged because they don't have a baby to suckle

Quoteif a woman doesn't want to have kids, there's something wrong with her

What a hero!

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 21, 2022, 12:14:20 PM
Sure. You could also quote pretty much any page from Maps of Meaning, which he submitted as part of his tenure bid, and which is 100% stream-of-consciousness garbage. Also note that he's retired, not resigned.

I've known tenured people who can't wait to retire because they hate what the department has become. If they sounded off about it, articulately (they know how) instead of just finding a hammock somewhere, I might think they actually meant it, as opposed to more like just getting tired of people's faces.
But I doubt Peterson will go away. He's become a bit of a celebrity.

ETA: One guy was so incensed he blew off the retirement dinner. Wow, like...profiles in courage.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 21, 2022, 12:14:20 PM

Or you could just quote Peterson directly. He's got deep views of women, for example:

Quotewomen have a subconscious wish for brutal male domination

Quoteit's unfortunate that men can't control women who say crazy things because they aren't allowed to hit them

Quoteyoung women are outraged because they don't have a baby to suckle

Quoteif a woman doesn't want to have kids, there's something wrong with her

What a hero!

Hmm...if I thought there was such a thing as a woman, I'd probably take umbrage.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 21, 2022, 12:14:20 PM
Sure. You could also quote pretty much any page from Maps of Meaning, which he submitted as part of his tenure bid, and which is 100% stream-of-consciousness garbage. Also note that he's retired, not resigned.



Or you could just quote Peterson directly. He's got deep views of women, for example:

Quotewomen have a subconscious wish for brutal male domination

Quoteit's unfortunate that men can't control women who say crazy things because they aren't allowed to hit them

Quoteyoung women are outraged because they don't have a baby to suckle

Quoteif a woman doesn't want to have kids, there's something wrong with her

What a hero!

Out of curiosity, what could he, (or anyone else for that matter), say about men that would be equally upsetting? For instance, would it be equally upsetting if he said:

Quoteif a man doesn't want to have a job, there's something wrong with him

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 21, 2022, 01:38:39 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 21, 2022, 12:14:20 PM
Sure. You could also quote pretty much any page from Maps of Meaning, which he submitted as part of his tenure bid, and which is 100% stream-of-consciousness garbage. Also note that he's retired, not resigned.



Or you could just quote Peterson directly. He's got deep views of women, for example:

Quotewomen have a subconscious wish for brutal male domination

Quoteit's unfortunate that men can't control women who say crazy things because they aren't allowed to hit them

Quoteyoung women are outraged because they don't have a baby to suckle

Quoteif a woman doesn't want to have kids, there's something wrong with her

What a hero!

Out of curiosity, what could he, (or anyone else for that matter), say about men that would be equally upsetting? For instance, would it be equally upsetting if he said:

Quoteif a man doesn't want to have a job, there's something wrong with him

Yes. For example, my son is the house parent for 15 mo toddler while my DIL continues to work. Their choice.

Alas, I lost the reference: A British female sociologist wrote an article, perhaps some 10 years ago, describing a survey she did.  About 20% of women wanted to work like men, full-time, thinking of work all the time and so on, and about 20% of women wanted to be full-time mothers and wives. The remaining 60% wanted various proportions in between. This corresponds to what I have seen in my environment.

My own wife chose her preferred  proportions not for a daily basis but rather for life. She stayed away from full time employment for about 10 years after our child was born, working not at all outside the home for a couple of years, hardly at all for a coupla' more years, and part time for some more years. This is costly in foregone monetary income but very rewarding in non-monetary income.

After a very small number of years I could contribute more and more to child raising.

Specialization according to comparative advantage, which evolves as the child gets harder to break. :-)

Yeah, I haven't got the energy to go chasing down sources right now, but he's made plenty of scorn-worthy statements regarding the "problem" of boys being insufficiently masculine.

People who make statements like the above about women often have narrow views as to what makes a "real man" as well.

IIRC, he has referred to boys who are more "agreeable" (as opposed to strongly competitive or "dominant") as displaying more 'feminine' personalities. As though you're less of a boy or less of a man if you value cooperation.

Never mind my own opinions on any specific question dealt with by Prof. Peterson, or anybody else's, the crucial issue is whether he should have the right to give his own answers.

It's about allowing competition between institutions. Competition as a discovery procedure.

Quote from: smallcleanrat on January 21, 2022, 02:18:19 PM
Yeah, I haven't got the energy to go chasing down sources right now, but he's made plenty of scorn-worthy statements regarding the "problem" of boys being insufficiently masculine.

People who make statements like the above about women often have narrow views as to what makes a "real man" as well.

IIRC, he has referred to boys who are more "agreeable" (as opposed to strongly competitive or "dominant") as displaying more 'feminine' personalities. As though you're less of a boy or less of a man if you value cooperation.

In my experience, he (and others) often say that in the context of what women find attractive. Women say they want "sensitive" men, but the ones that are less agreeable (i.e. the "bad boys") have legendary appeal. (Insert any number of statistics about serial killers on death row getting fan mail from women, or about gang members having multiple children by multiple women.)  The fact that long term relationships don't turn out well doesn't change the reality of many women being drawn to them in the first place.

TL;DR
From an academic perspective, which is worth studying is what IS, whether or not it is what one might think SHOULD BE.

Yes, it's absolutely worth studying whether forced monogamy would have prevented the Toronto incel van attack. :rolleyes:

Peterson doesn't do scholarship. He hasn't in a long, long time. He's a chronic liar who couldn't properly relate real scholarship if he tried. What he does do is benzos. A lot of them. Kook diets and medical treatments, too. Everything he vomits up is straight stream-of-consciousness bullshit, half of it made up bullshit from a hundred or more years ago, the other half post-modern word association salad.

He's lucky he managed to land an academic job, let alone at a top university like UofT, let alone tenure. His "work" is garbage. I can believe that his early work on alcoholism was no more garbage than other work in psych in the  nineties, but everything else is transparent garbage. He's a good grifter, I'll give him that, but nothing more.

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 21, 2022, 03:46:55 PM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on January 21, 2022, 02:18:19 PM
Yeah, I haven't got the energy to go chasing down sources right now, but he's made plenty of scorn-worthy statements regarding the "problem" of boys being insufficiently masculine.

People who make statements like the above about women often have narrow views as to what makes a "real man" as well.

IIRC, he has referred to boys who are more "agreeable" (as opposed to strongly competitive or "dominant") as displaying more 'feminine' personalities. As though you're less of a boy or less of a man if you value cooperation.

In my experience, he (and others) often say that in the context of what women find attractive. Women say they want "sensitive" men, but the ones that are less agreeable (i.e. the "bad boys") have legendary appeal. (Insert any number of statistics about serial killers on death row getting fan mail from women, or about gang members having multiple children by multiple women.)  The fact that long term relationships don't turn out well doesn't change the reality of many women being drawn to them in the first place.

TL;DR
From an academic perspective, which is worth studying is what IS, whether or not it is what one might think SHOULD BE.

That was NOT the context of the interview I listened to, and he was certainly making prescriptive statements, not simply talking about "what IS."

I haven't exhaustively read his works, but from what I have read and heard from him Parasaurolophus's "stream-of-consciousness bullshit" evaluation strikes me as a much more fitting descriptor than "serious scholarship."

---

Incidentally, I guess you've lucked out, because my experience has been that anyone saying something along the lines of "women love bad boys; research says so" is almost never interested in just discussing "what IS." I've mostly heard it in the context of making some kind of SHOULD BE argument (too often that women should stop "lying" and "playing games" when they tell a man they want him to stop pursuing them; "'no' means 'yes'; they secretly want to be dominated and told what to do").

Quote from: smallcleanrat on January 21, 2022, 04:45:22 PM

Incidentally, I guess you've lucked out, because my experience has been that anyone saying something along the lines of "women love bad boys; research says so" is almost never interested in just discussing "what IS." I've mostly heard it in the context of making some kind of SHOULD BE argument (too often that women should stop "lying" and "playing games" when they tell a man they want him to stop pursuing them; "'no' means 'yes'; they secretly want to be dominated and told what to do").

Yeah, it's textbook incel, straight out of so-called pickup artistry.



marshwiggle has probably never read a paper a student wrote while high, since his discipline doesn't really lend itself to that kind of evaluation. But I have, several times. And what gets vomited up is pretty much the same as what Peterson can't choke back. Tripping can be fun, but it doesn't improve one's scholarly acumen.

Quote from: dismalist on January 21, 2022, 03:46:26 PM
Never mind my own opinions on any specific question dealt with by Prof. Peterson, or anybody else's, the crucial issue is whether he should have the right to give his own answers.

So far no one wants to address that. Ad hominems are more fun.

ETA:

QuoteHe's a chronic liar who couldn't properly relate real scholarship if he tried.

Clear example of a lie, please? I'm getting it that you don't like his views, but that's not what the thread was supposed to be for.

QuoteHe's lucky he managed to land an academic job, let alone at a top university like UofT, let alone tenure.

He claims that he wouldn't get one now, which is probably true at the vast majority of schools. things have changed

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 21, 2022, 01:38:39 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 21, 2022, 12:14:20 PM
Sure. You could also quote pretty much any page from Maps of Meaning, which he submitted as part of his tenure bid, and which is 100% stream-of-consciousness garbage. Also note that he's retired, not resigned.



Or you could just quote Peterson directly. He's got deep views of women, for example:

Quotewomen have a subconscious wish for brutal male domination

Quoteit's unfortunate that men can't control women who say crazy things because they aren't allowed to hit them

Quoteyoung women are outraged because they don't have a baby to suckle

Quoteif a woman doesn't want to have kids, there's something wrong with her

What a hero!

Out of curiosity, what could he, (or anyone else for that matter), say about men that would be equally upsetting? For instance, would it be equally upsetting if he said:

Quoteif a man doesn't want to have a job, there's something wrong with him

"He has had difficulty finding dates."

'Incel'

a member of an online subculture of men who want to have sex but are unable to find sexual partners, typically blaming women or hating people who are sexually successful (often used attributively):
Perhaps unsurprisingly, contemplation and discussion of suicide features prominently on incel forums.

spinster

noun
Disparaging and Offensive. a woman still unmarried beyond the usual age of marrying.
Chiefly Law. a woman who has never married.
a woman whose occupation is spinning.

dictionary.com    2022 January

deleted

I only had to read about ten lines into the article before I found his first lie, where he claims Canadian universities have EDI hiring  mandates.  It is true that EDI is a consideration during the hiring process and there are likely diversity targets, but there is no mandate.  As with all good lies, there is a grain of truth in what he says and it may not be an outright lie, but it is also not true.  Targets are not mandates.  As mentioned, he is a good grifter and is a master at this exact thing.

Like this example, his whole perspective on this has some truth but he has twisted it.  I do agree that EDI has gone to far.  I just spent days writing EDI section a for grant proposals.  In them, I have to describe the systemic barriers etc in my field and how we will address them.  I am in STEM, and they are forcing me to be a social scientist.  I really .not qualified to write on this topic. Also,.as he says, if we fail to do this we will not get research funding so there is a lot of pandering going on.

That being said, I did take a workshop before being on a hiring committee and thought it was a worth while thing for us to do.  Even just from a legal perspective it is worth while to make sure the process is fair and legal (it is amazing how many faculty will ask things they are not supposed to).  Likewise with EDI, it has made me read and consider my own practices.  So, while I think they have taken it too far, you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Also as mentioned, retiring to emeritus status is hardly voting with your feet...especially when you are making millions grifting.

Quote from: mahagonny on January 21, 2022, 06:26:27 PM

Quote from: dismalist on January 21, 2022, 03:46:26 PM
Never mind my own opinions on any specific question dealt with by Prof. Peterson, or anybody else's, the crucial issue is whether he should have the right to give his own answers.

So far no one wants to address that. Ad hominems are more fun.

ETA:

QuoteHe's a chronic liar who couldn't properly relate real scholarship if he tried.

Clear example of a lie, please? I'm getting it that you don't like his views, but that's not what the thread was supposed to be for.

QuoteHe's lucky he managed to land an academic job, let alone at a top university like UofT, let alone tenure.

He claims that he wouldn't get one now, which is probably true at the vast majority of schools. things have changed

Regarding his right to say things, has anyone stopped him?  Seems he has a pretty loud platform, but he and all white males are victims somehow...

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 22, 2022, 03:51:29 AM

QuoteHe's lucky he managed to land an academic job, let alone at a top university like UofT, let alone tenure.

He claims that he wouldn't get one now, which is probably true at the vast majority of schools. things have changed

QuoteRegarding his right to say things, has anyone stopped him?  Seems he has a pretty loud platform, but he and all white males are victims somehow...

I hear his message as more we are all victims of the stupidity of the current DEI dogma. And to the charge is DEI dogma taking over and driving people away who are well qualified and through self selection getting mostly only either people who are all smoking the same DEI water pipe, or those who are too cowed to express their non-neo-liberal selves, I haven't heard any reason not to be very worried that he's right. And that's the central point.
His platform is loud now, but if liberal academia had its way he'd have none, as we can see from Para's posts. The loud platform he has now is by identifying DEI as something close to a public menace, using outlets not controlled by liberal academia. Which is the opinion increasingly held by the lay public. The left would have us believe they are all white 'cisgender' heterosexual men. But they'd be very wrong.
He has freedom of speech because of the government of the country he lives in. Academics hate him.

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 22, 2022, 03:48:21 AM
Also as mentioned, retiring to emeritus status is hardly voting with your feet...especially when you are making millions grifting.

So sorry I worded it that way. I could just die.
ETA: Anyway, I think the people who're voting with their feet in greater numbers are the young men who are doing something else other than college, right out of high school. And they listen to Peterson. It doesn't do that much good to hate him. Someone else would come along.

QuoteI do agree that EDI has gone to far.

Your secret's safe here.

I first heard him on CBC radio.  The media is not silencing him at all, they gave him the platform.

Young men may be choosing different paths, but I don't think you can blame it all on EDI or this dude.  It is happening around the world, in cultures with varying takes on the subject. 

As mentioned, I am no social scientist but blaming everything on EDI seems like a cop out.

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 22, 2022, 04:58:42 AM
Young men may be choosing different paths, but I don't think you can blame it all on EDI or this dude.  It is happening around the world, in cultures with varying takes on the subject. 

As mentioned, I am no social scientist but blaming everything on EDI seems like a cop out.

My beef with EDI is like a beef I had with grading when I was a grad TA.
The new department chair was from another country, and decreed that the average lab grade in every lab section was to be 70-75%. (Grades would be adjusted post-hoc if that didn't occur.) It bugged me at the time, but after supervising labs for decades, I have more data on why that was so STUPID. In short, lab sections get different student populations, based on when they fit with courses in other programs. Also, keen students tend to sign up earlier in the week; the slackers sign up late and get whatever's left over, which if often the last in the schedule. Decreeing that the average in a COURSE  (of at least 100 students, for instance), may make some more sense as the stats will be more reliable. (I won't even get into differences between TAs at this point.)

My beef with EDI is for a similar reason. When I hire TAs now, I am limited by the pool of candidates available NOW. I can't control the pool. When I can re-hrie experienced people I do, and when I need to hire new people, I go with applicants who did the best in the labs themselves. A couple of years ago, I needed 5 TAs for a course. If the course typically has 30% women in it, then if I hire 1 female TA I'm a misogynist but if I hire 2 female TAs then I'm a hero. This is independent of how many women have applied, or how they did in the course. (Personally, I don't care; if the best 5 TAs are all women I'd gladly hire them. I want people who can do the job well and make things run smoothly.)

If a hiring pool has a very large and diverse group of qualified applicants, then selecting on criteria like diversity has some merit. But in reality, when very specific qualifications are needed, that often won't be the case. If EDI takes over, then the tail is wagging the dog.

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 22, 2022, 06:24:14 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 22, 2022, 04:58:42 AM
Young men may be choosing different paths, but I don't think you can blame it all on EDI or this dude.  It is happening around the world, in cultures with varying takes on the subject. 

As mentioned, I am no social scientist but blaming everything on EDI seems like a cop out.

My beef with EDI is like a beef I had with grading when I was a grad TA.
The new department chair was from another country, and decreed that the average lab grade in every lab section was to be 70-75%. (Grades would be adjusted post-hoc if that didn't occur.) It bugged me at the time, but after supervising labs for decades, I have more data on why that was so STUPID. In short, lab sections get different student populations, based on when they fit with courses in other programs. Also, keen students tend to sign up earlier in the week; the slackers sign up late and get whatever's left over, which if often the last in the schedule. Decreeing that the average in a COURSE  (of at least 100 students, for instance), may make some more sense as the stats will be more reliable. (I won't even get into differences between TAs at this point.)

My beef with EDI is for a similar reason. When I hire TAs now, I am limited by the pool of candidates available NOW. I can't control the pool. When I can re-hrie experienced people I do, and when I need to hire new people, I go with applicants who did the best in the labs themselves. A couple of years ago, I needed 5 TAs for a course. If the course typically has 30% women in it, then if I hire 1 female TA I'm a misogynist but if I hire 2 female TAs then I'm a hero. This is independent of how many women have applied, or how they did in the course. (Personally, I don't care; if the best 5 TAs are all women I'd gladly hire them. I want people who can do the job well and make things run smoothly.)

If a hiring pool has a very large and diverse group of qualified applicants, then selecting on criteria like diversity has some merit. But in reality, when very specific qualifications are needed, that often won't be the case. If EDI takes over, then the tail is wagging the dog.

But there is no rule that says you must have a specific number here.  The intent of EDI is not to ensure you hire a specific group at a specified rate, just to make sure we are not creating barriers that prevent a fair process.  As I said, it has gone overboard IMO, but the general intent is good. 

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 22, 2022, 04:46:21 AM
I first heard him on CBC radio.  The media is not silencing him at all, they gave him the platform.

Also, isnt the article you posted from the leftist cabal?

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 22, 2022, 04:58:42 AM
Young men may be choosing different paths, but I don't think you can blame it all on EDI or this dude.  It is happening around the world, in cultures with varying takes on the subject. 

As mentioned, I am no social scientist but blaming everything on EDI seems like a cop out.

I would expect you to deflect blame away from them even though you're sane and honest enough to admit some difference of opinion with DEI, on a pseudonymous forum (whatever that difference may be specifically, if/when you tell us). You're one of the people who makes a good living as an academic. And DEI is part of higher ed's gravy train.
ETA: No I realize this is not an argument; logical fallacy. But one has to wonder how DEI could ever be reigned in from its excesses without a trumpeter like Peterson.

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 22, 2022, 07:11:39 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 22, 2022, 04:46:21 AM
I first heard him on CBC radio.  The media is not silencing him at all, they gave him the platform.

Also, isnt the article you posted from the leftist cabal?

Not according to mediabiasfact check, although I'm not sure they are reliable.
The left has good reason to keep an eye on Peterson, though. Many of them might also be stupid enough to think they can turn readers against him just by telling them what he's been up to lately.
It's kind of like the CRT debate. Every time a person like Terry McAuliffe speaks, a swing voter registers republican. And he thought he was campaigning for himself.

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 22, 2022, 07:09:56 AM

But there is no rule that says you must have a specific number here.  The intent of EDI is not to ensure you hire a specific group at a specified rate, just to make sure we are not creating barriers that prevent a fair process.  As I said, it has gone overboard IMO, but the general intent is good.

The whole assumption of "systemic <whatever>" is that these barriers are already created, have been in place forever, and will exist in perpetuity, so the only way to get around that is to treat people making decisions as guilty until proven innocent.
That framing basically implies that this process isn't a temporary correction, but rather a permanent necessity.

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 22, 2022, 08:25:39 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 22, 2022, 07:09:56 AM

But there is no rule that says you must have a specific number here.  The intent of EDI is not to ensure you hire a specific group at a specified rate, just to make sure we are not creating barriers that prevent a fair process.  As I said, it has gone overboard IMO, but the general intent is good.

The whole assumption of "systemic <whatever>" is that these barriers are already created, have been in place forever, and will exist in perpetuity, so the only way to get around that is to treat people making decisions as guilty until proven innocent.
That framing basically implies that this process isn't a temporary correction, but rather a permanent necessity.

'Dismantle White Supremacy.'  You can't have a confession if there's no guilt. The point is the confession, the catharsis experienced by the true believers. They are now spiritually pure. For five minutes.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 21, 2022, 12:14:20 PM
Or you could just quote Peterson directly. He's got deep views of women, for example:

Quotewomen have a subconscious wish for brutal male domination

Quoteit's unfortunate that men can't control women who say crazy things because they aren't allowed to hit them

Quoteyoung women are outraged because they don't have a baby to suckle

Quoteif a woman doesn't want to have kids, there's something wrong with her

What a hero!

He is an interesting demonstration of the fact that bigotries are not necessarily a correlation of low intelligence or lack of exposure to the world.

Quote from: mahagonny on January 21, 2022, 06:26:27 PM


Clear example of a lie, please? I'm getting it that you don't like his views, but that's not what the thread was supposed to be for.

There's the first sentence of his editorial, for a start: he retired, he didn't resign.

Alternately, you could consider the things that brought him to prominence: his opposition to §46.3 of the OHC and Bill C-16. The most charitable interpretation there is that he's willfully lying to serve his own interests, although I'll concede that it's entirely possible that he's an abject moron instead.

It's not just that I don't like his views, although that's true. It's that he's peddling garbage and calling it scholarship. And he's also causing harm with his clinical "practice", which violates a number of standards of care.

I don't like the content of your views either, or marshwiggle's, but I assume--correctly, I think--that the scholarship you both produce is real and not just transparent garbage that's either a hundred years out of date or entirely made up.

Quote
His platform is loud now, but if liberal academia had its way he'd have none, as we can see from Para's posts.

He can have an academic platform for actual scholarship. It's not my fault he produces none.

Oh, that wouldn't be news. On the forum recently we discussed one Brittany Cooper who is only one of many bigots of a certain type that have become a specialty of higher education in the USA. and darlings of the left media, pro sports, Hollywood, corporate management.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 22, 2022, 09:12:22 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 21, 2022, 12:14:20 PM
Or you could just quote Peterson directly. He's got deep views of women, for example:

Quotewomen have a subconscious wish for brutal male domination

Quoteit's unfortunate that men can't control women who say crazy things because they aren't allowed to hit them

Quoteyoung women are outraged because they don't have a baby to suckle

Quoteif a woman doesn't want to have kids, there's something wrong with her

What a hero!

He is an interesting demonstration of the fact that bigotries are not necessarily a correlation of low intelligence or lack of exposure to the world.

Good for him for leaving a situation that obviously brings him great stress and grief. I'm sure he'll be happier doing his motivational videos and podcast appearances. In terms of his quit-blog, I'm sure he believes all this stuff deeply, but these sweeping assertions (not supported by accompanying data) he is making about academic life and hiring seem like overstatements and overgeneralizations.

I do buy that his grad students could be suffering on the job market because of their affiliation with him, although I wonder how good/modern the training he provides really is, given that he hasn't done any real research in years.

It's hard enough for him to write coherently at the best of times, so I imagine the letters of recommendation he wrote from his medically-induced coma in Russia (to "treat" his benzo addiction) did no one any favours.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 22, 2022, 10:22:53 AM
It's hard enough for him to write coherently at the best of times, so I imagine the letters of recommendation he wrote from his medically-induced coma in Russia (to "treat" his benzo addiction) did no one any favours.

Next time you're down remind me to kick you.

Quote from: mahagonny on January 22, 2022, 11:00:17 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 22, 2022, 10:22:53 AM
It's hard enough for him to write coherently at the best of times, so I imagine the letters of recommendation he wrote from his medically-induced coma in Russia (to "treat" his benzo addiction) did no one any favours.

Next time you're down remind me to kick you.

Next time I'm down I won't blame an amorphous other for the consequences of my own failures.

The facts--his students (if he has any) are under-prepared, under-supervised, and under-served by his letters--don't care about his feelings.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 22, 2022, 11:08:12 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 22, 2022, 11:00:17 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 22, 2022, 10:22:53 AM
It's hard enough for him to write coherently at the best of times, so I imagine the letters of recommendation he wrote from his medically-induced coma in Russia (to "treat" his benzo addiction) did no one any favours.

Next time you're down remind me to kick you.

Next time I'm down I won't blame an amorphous other for the consequences of my own failures.

I expect that will vary according to who's telling the story. If it's your friend, he'll say something like you happened on an unscrupulous physician who freely prescribed klonopin for everything. If it's someone who hates you, you'll get the same treatment you're giving Peterson. Don't bullshit. We know how people are.

I'm blaming him for his students' lack of success on the market. He blames women, queer people, and non-white people.

That's the difference. When I'm a shitty supervisor, I'll own up to it rather than punch down to straw men.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 22, 2022, 10:06:47 AM
I do buy that his grad students could be suffering on the job market because of their affiliation with him, although I wonder how good/modern the training he provides really is, given that he hasn't done any real research in years.

My school's DEI staff have been doing some training that's, like real modern.
ETA: Ideas are not automatically good because they have been either recently developed or in fashion.

Para: The DEI lunacy is only big time now because thousands of groovy white academic people support it. The tenure track is a pretty white place. Peterson rails against them as much as he does anyone. The idiotic ideas are the problem.

Quote from: mahagonny on January 22, 2022, 12:07:17 PM
The idiotic ideas are the problem.

Yes. Idiotic ideas like his decontextualized Jungian-Campbellite stream-of-consciousness nonsense.

Quote from: mahagonny on January 22, 2022, 12:07:17 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 22, 2022, 10:06:47 AM
I do buy that his grad students could be suffering on the job market because of their affiliation with him, although I wonder how good/modern the training he provides really is, given that he hasn't done any real research in years.

My school's DEI staff have been doing some training that's, like real modern.
ETA: Ideas are not automatically good because they have been either recently developed or in fashion.

I never said that they are, but one cannot publish in top journals without serious methods training and an understanding of the current debates in the academic journals. I don't know about Peterson's field, his research profile, or his engagement with the literature, so not going to say he doesn't train students well, but in general celebrity advisors who write self help books and podcast all day aren't going to be very effective at getting their students up to par. It doesn't help that lots of people are put off by Peterson's philosophy, but if his grads have top pubs they will get hired regardless.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 22, 2022, 01:44:47 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 22, 2022, 12:07:17 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 22, 2022, 10:06:47 AM
I do buy that his grad students could be suffering on the job market because of their affiliation with him, although I wonder how good/modern the training he provides really is, given that he hasn't done any real research in years.

My school's DEI staff have been doing some training that's, like real modern.
ETA: Ideas are not automatically good because they have been either recently developed or in fashion.

I never said that they are, but one cannot publish in top journals without serious methods training and an understanding of the current debates in the academic journals. I don't know about Peterson's field, his research profile, or his engagement with the literature, so not going to say he doesn't train students well, but in general celebrity advisors who write self help books and podcast all day aren't going to be very effective at getting their students up to par. It doesn't help that lots of people are put off by Peterson's philosophy, but if his grads have top pubs they will get hired regardless.

Your stern look at the responsibilities of deeply tenured star academics should be bad news for Ibram X. Kendi. He might want to cut back on his schedule of moonlighting spiritual cleansing exercises for hopelessly racist cashiers working at CVS, for example. We're going to hear a lot of protests from academics like yourself who are worried that his students aren't getting enough attention, any minute now, aren't we? Heh heh.

ETA: then again, Jordan Peterson had the lack of imagination and tactics to join an actual academic field, clinical psychology I believe it is. Whereas Kendi found a way around that. The 'field' of 'antiracism.' Just make up your own field, no history, no rigor, no serious thinkers for one to be compared to, no feet getting held to the fire. Anything goes. Well played sir!
Reminds me, That old spy spoof show, 'Get Smart' had a similar self-validating scheme: international counter-espionage was unchallengeable, being dedicated to the cause of 'niceness.'

[not sarcasm]
As well, it surprises me that people like yourself who are so capable of holding people's feet the fire don't generally have anything to say to challenge the sweeping generalizations regularly churned out by DEI staff. If they are part of university culture, why shouldn't they be held to standards?  Not to mention rock stars like Kendi who turn out to be total lightweights.

(aside: when I use the term 'rock star' it's not a compliment)

Quote from: mahagonny on January 22, 2022, 04:28:05 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 22, 2022, 01:44:47 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 22, 2022, 12:07:17 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 22, 2022, 10:06:47 AM
I do buy that his grad students could be suffering on the job market because of their affiliation with him, although I wonder how good/modern the training he provides really is, given that he hasn't done any real research in years.

My school's DEI staff have been doing some training that's, like real modern.
ETA: Ideas are not automatically good because they have been either recently developed or in fashion.

I never said that they are, but one cannot publish in top journals without serious methods training and an understanding of the current debates in the academic journals. I don't know about Peterson's field, his research profile, or his engagement with the literature, so not going to say he doesn't train students well, but in general celebrity advisors who write self help books and podcast all day aren't going to be very effective at getting their students up to par. It doesn't help that lots of people are put off by Peterson's philosophy, but if his grads have top pubs they will get hired regardless.

Your stern look at the responsibilities of deeply tenured star academics should be bad news for Ibram X. Kendi. He might want to cut back on his schedule of moonlighting spiritual cleansing exercises for hopelessly racist cashiers working at CVS, for example. We're going to hear a lot of protests from academics like yourself who are worried that his students aren't getting enough attention, any minute now, aren't we? Heh heh.

ETA: then again, Jordan Peterson had the lack of imagination and tactics to join an actual academic field, clinical psychology I believe it is. Whereas Kendi found a way around that. The 'field' of 'antiracism.' Just make up your own field, no history, no rigor, no serious thinkers for one to be compared to, no feet getting held to the fire. Anything goes. Well played sir!
Reminds me, That old spy spoof show, 'Get Smart' had a similar self-validating scheme: international counter-espionage was unchallengeable, being dedicated to the cause of 'niceness.'

[not sarcasm]
As well, it surprises me that people like yourself who are so capable of holding people's feet the fire don't generally have anything to say to challenge the sweeping generalizations regularly churned out by DEI staff. If they are part of university culture, why shouldn't they be held to standards?  Not to mention rock stars like Kendi who turn out to be total lightweights.

(aside: when I use the term 'rock star' it's not a compliment)

This thread - which you posted for us to respond to - is about Jordan Peterson and his letter explaining why he quit, so I'm reacting to your OP by pointing out what is obviously true: That he makes sweeping generalizations about academic hiring, applying to grants, etc., and instead of supporting these claims with data or evidence he says "this has been common knowledge among any remotely truthful academic who has served on a hiring committee for the last three decades." If this Kendi person that you are so obsessed with writes a blog with a bunch of assertions about academic life and backs these assertions up by saying "everyone knows this is true," then I'll be happy to say that it is not convincing. Same for DEI staff - who apparently dominate your institution, but are nowhere to be seen at my public in the US.

In any case, the part of my post that you quoted and are apparently responding to is not about Jordan Peterson's quit blog and it holds regardless of whether we're talking about a celebrity academic on the right or on the left: If the advisor is too busy being a celebrity to do the real work of advising students on how to publish in top academic venues, then their students are going to struggle on the job market. There are some celebrity-type academics in my department (obv not on the level of Jordon Peterson) and they are valuable members of the team, but they don't generally have the time, interest, or technical skills to mentor students to publish in top academic journals. I would discourage a PhD student from working with these folks, unless they want to go into the think tank world.

Sun Worshiper posted:

This thread - which you posted for us to respond to - is about Jordan Peterson and his letter explaining why he quit, so I'm reacting to your OP by pointing out what is obviously true: That he makes sweeping generalizations about academic hiring, applying to grants, etc., and instead of supporting these claims with data or evidence he says "this has been common knowledge among any remotely truthful academic who has served on a hiring committee for the last three decades."

Mahag replies:

Where is your evidence for this claim, then:

QuoteIt doesn't help that lots of people are put off by Peterson's philosophy, but if his grads have top pubs they will get hired regardless.

to wit,

No one seems to dispute that this is going on:

"All my craven colleagues must craft DIE statements to obtain a research grant." -- Dr. Peterson

So I'll submit: if your claim (my bolding) is correct, a scholar applying for a grant should be able to state 'I sincerely hope, in the interest of viewpoint diversity/inclusion, that the currently held nonsense being spewed by DEI departments across our land gets some serious clock cleaning in the immediate future,; as well, I fervently hope we will be able to hear much more from the conservative faction (particularly the outstanding young, Black thinkers) their measured, well supported logical repudiation of today's democratic party platform and its racist treatment of BIPOC voters and the calamitous effects on their rates of success and health over decades resulting from that party's implausible victimhood/oppressor worldview, a worldview that unfortunately has recently dominated our American media, academic and entertainment culture today despite its unpopularity'   and still get the grant, as long as they meet the requirement of having recently published in the quality journals.'

...or some such broadside against the well-known monochromatic DEI rhetoric in our midst. They could probably state it better than me. (I'm just a trade school educated, adjunct artist -- academic also ran)

There is much reason to doubt it.

Quote from: mahagonny on January 23, 2022, 01:47:27 PM
Sun Worshiper posted:

This thread - which you posted for us to respond to - is about Jordan Peterson and his letter explaining why he quit, so I'm reacting to your OP by pointing out what is obviously true: That he makes sweeping generalizations about academic hiring, applying to grants, etc., and instead of supporting these claims with data or evidence he says "this has been common knowledge among any remotely truthful academic who has served on a hiring committee for the last three decades."

Mahag replies:

Where is your evidence for this claim, then:

QuoteIt doesn't help that lots of people are put off by Peterson's philosophy, but if his grads have top pubs they will get hired regardless.

to wit,

No one seems to dispute that this is going on:

"All my craven colleagues must craft DIE statements to obtain a research grant." -- Dr. Peterson

So I'll submit: if your claim (my bolding) is correct, a scholar applying for a grant should be able to state 'I sincerely hope, in the interest of viewpoint diversity/inclusion, that the currently held nonsense being spewed by DEI departments across our land gets some serious clock cleaning in the immediate future,; as well, I fervently hope we will be able to hear much more from the conservative faction (particularly the outstanding young, Black thinkers) their measured, well supported logical repudiation of today's democratic party platform and its racist treatment of BIPOC voters and the calamitous effects on their rates of success and health over decades resulting from that party's implausible victimhood/oppressor worldview, a worldview that unfortunately has recently dominated our American media, academic and entertainment culture today despite its unpopularity'   and still get the grant, as long as they meet the requirement of having recently published in the quality journals.'

...or some such broadside against the well-known monochromatic DEI rhetoric in our midst. They could probably state it better than me. (I'm just a trade school educated, adjunct artist -- academic also ran)

There is much reason to doubt it.

For most grants, you don't need to agree, you just have to show what steps you have taken in your lab to ensure everyone is treated equally and such.  No matter what your stance is on the topic, you can write about how your lab dosn't discriminate and creates an inclusive environment. 

For larger grants, you do need to describe systemic barriers etc.,  In this case, you would be pretty hard pressed to succeed by denying it exists.  This is the section I think takes it to far.  Not because I disagree that systemic barriers exist, just that I don't feel qualifies to write on the subject. 

Some of the things they are looking for are that you advertise with non-gendered language, distribute work and opportunities in an equitable manner (ie. Not always assigning females to take notes, giving equal support for conferences, etc.), Provide flexibility for religious/family needs, etc.

Again, even if you don't think there are any systemic barriers, it is pretty easy to tell them how you operate your lab to make sure that's true.  If you don't believe in any barriers, I'm sure you already do all these things and more.

Quote from: mahagonny on January 23, 2022, 01:47:27 PM
Sun Worshiper posted:

This thread - which you posted for us to respond to - is about Jordan Peterson and his letter explaining why he quit, so I'm reacting to your OP by pointing out what is obviously true: That he makes sweeping generalizations about academic hiring, applying to grants, etc., and instead of supporting these claims with data or evidence he says "this has been common knowledge among any remotely truthful academic who has served on a hiring committee for the last three decades."

Mahog replies:

Where is your evidence for this claim, then?

QuoteIt doesn't help that lots of people are put off by Peterson's philosophy, but if his grads have top pubs they will get hired regardless.

Here is are some articles that show evidence that pubs (especially top pubs) dominate when it comes to academic hiring at research universities:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982214004771
https://socialsciences.nature.com/posts/55118-the-path-to-professorship-by-the-numbers-and-why-mentorship-matters
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3604270

Quote from: mahagonny on January 23, 2022, 01:47:27 PM
No one seems to dispute that this is going on:

"All my craven colleagues must craft DIE statements to obtain a research grant." -- Dr. Peterson

So I'll submit: if your claim (which I italicized) is correct, a scholar applying for a grant should be able to state 'I sincerely hope, in the interest of viewpoint diversity, that the currently held nonsense being spewed by DEI departments across our land gets some serious clock cleaning in the immediate future,; as well, I fervently hope we will be able to hear much more from the conservative faction (particularly the outstanding young, Black thinkers) their measured, well supported logical repudiation of today's democratic party platform and its racist treatment of BIPOC voters and the calamitous effects on their rates of success and health over decades resulting from their perpetual victimhood dogma'   and still get the grant, as long as they meet your requirement of having recently published in the quality journals.'

...or some such broadside against the DEI rhetoric in our midst. They could probably state it better than me. (I'm just a trade school educated, adjunct artist -- academic also ran)

There is much reason to doubt it.

Which of my claims is this in response to? I never said anything about applying for grants. I said (1) that Peterson is making sweeping claims without evidence beyond, to paraphrase, "everyone knows this is true." My statement is accurate - he offers no evidence, beyond his own experience, to back up many of his complaints. I also said (2) that top pubs dominate in terms of getting a job (not a grant) and the evidence I offered above supports that assertion.

As for whether you can get a grant that requires a diversity statement by arguing that your grant advances viewpoint diversity (whatever that means, exactly), I might personally buy, if the grant was otherwise well done and you made a strong case for why advancing viewpoint diversity in this way was important, so be sure to suggest me as a peer reviewer.

And look, I support JP's decision to leave his job at Toronto. Obviously he is unhappy and life is too short to stay in an unfulfilling job (if you have other options, which he surely does). I just don't find his arguments, as explained in his resignation blog, to be very convincing.

QuoteFor larger grants, you do need to describe systemic barriers etc.,  In this case, you would be pretty hard pressed to succeed by denying it exists.  This is the section I think takes it to far.  Not because I disagree that systemic barriers exist, just that I don't feel qualifies to write on the subject.

I am not convinced they exist so I would be inclined to ask for evidence from them, and that would be the end of the grant application. But instead of doing something counterproductive, I might instead hang out with the local cool people long enough to learn how to fake it. This would mean I am another craven one, according to Peterson, but then I'm really essentially an outsider anyway (adjunct) so I don't feel much of a sense of duty in rooting out the rot.
I don't know a lot about the grant writing process first hand, but you can take Dr. Jordan Peterson out of the picture, and there are still many who think it stinks to high heaven, as do other things the DEI infiltrates.. He's just the one people in charge love to hate because he's been getting a following.
ETA: Encouraging sign, Gov. Glenn Youngkin dissolves the state DEI bureaucracy! And of course the liberal media is ready to pounce...https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/590908-virginias-youngkin-gets-the-desantis-treatment-from-media
https://news.yahoo.com/youngkin-eliminates-cabinet-level-dei-163904493.html

Quote from: mahagonny on January 23, 2022, 06:35:54 PM

QuoteFor larger grants, you do need to describe systemic barriers etc.,  In this case, you would be pretty hard pressed to succeed by denying it exists.  This is the section I think takes it to far.  Not because I disagree that systemic barriers exist, just that I don't feel qualifies to write on the subject.

I am not convinced they exist so I would be inclined to ask for evidence from them, and that would be the end of the grant application. But instead of doing something counterproductive, I might instead hang out with the local cool people long enough to learn how to fake it. This would mean I am another craven one, according to Peterson, but then I'm really essentially an outsider anyway (adjunct) so I don't feel much of a sense of duty in rooting out the rot.
I don't know a lot about the grant writing process first hand, but you can take Dr. Jordan Peterson out of the picture, and there are still many who think it stinks to high heaven, as do other things the DEI infiltrates.. He's just the one people in charge love to hate because he's been getting a following.
ETA: Encouraging sign, Gov. Glenn Youngkin dissolves the state DEI bureaucracy! And of course the liberal media is ready to pounce...https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/590908-virginias-youngkin-gets-the-desantis-treatment-from-media
https://news.yahoo.com/youngkin-eliminates-cabinet-level-dei-163904493.html

Then yes, you would fail before you started.  On these grants, the EDI section is a go/no-go section.  If they don't like this part, you have failed no matter what.  I agree that this takes it too far.

See, Dr. Kendi has explained impediments faced by minorities in a way everyone can understand. His explanation is 'White people are 77% of the population, but 95.8 % of farmers are white. So white supremacy is keeping BIPOC people out of the farming business, obviously, unless you are a racist and think black people are too stupid to succeed at farming, and that's why we're not doing it.' AnD the DEI professionals say 'hmm...i think I smell a full time benefitted gig here. Let me dust off my resume and apply.' And the liberal academic says 'yeah, I don't necessarily agree 100% with...what did you say his name was, I don't think I've heard of him yet...oh yeah, Kendi, but that's one way that scholars look at things and it deserves to be heard and not canceled by the radical right who, as we know, prevents black people from voting.'

Kendi has built his empire on this thing that he calls a theory fact. It's nothing but bullying with a moralistic ultimatum that puts the listener on trial. And Jordan Peterson is the one who's holding court with his free associating and can't be trusted.

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 23, 2022, 03:06:12 PM
Some of the things they are looking for are that you advertise with non-gendered language, distribute work and opportunities in an equitable manner (ie. Not always assigning females to take notes, giving equal support for conferences, etc.), Provide flexibility for religious/family needs, etc.

Again, even if you don't think there are any systemic barriers, it is pretty easy to tell them how you operate your lab to make sure that's true.  If you don't believe in any barriers, I'm sure you already do all these things and more.

You can't prove a negative. So how do you prove that you "*distribute work and opportunities in an equitable manner"? Who actually has a written policy that "females take notes"?

The whole "systemic" assumption of guilty until proven innocent makes the task impossible.


*All the things that for decades were considered just decent professional behaviour. And for decades the people who didn't do those things were known for being jerks. The progressive idea that they just invented these 5 minutes ago is galling. Lots of people in the past were conscientious and just did these things as a matter of course because it was the right thing to do; now people need some sort of "seal of approval" from a DIE committee to identify them as not evil. (At least for the moment.)

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 24, 2022, 06:21:55 AM

You can't prove a negative.

1.p > ~q
2. p
3. ∴ ~q (1, 2 MP)


Similarly, it's not particularly hard to prove that the earth is not flat.

Quote
So how do you prove that you "*distribute work and opportunities in an equitable manner"?

That's not a negative. And even if it was, Kron3007 did not suggest you had to prove it was true, merely that you had to describe your lab and its operations with an eye to showing that you're aware of the ways in which systemic barriers might potentially manifest, and that your lab is not a place where they do so.

QuoteWho actually has a written policy that "females take notes"?

Presumably, nobody. But there are some places where that's how things shake out. The idea is to be sufficiently aware of this stereotyped tendency that it's not one manifested in the spaces over which one is responsible.

Quote
*All the things that for decades were considered just decent professional behaviour. And for decades the people who didn't do those things were known for being jerks. The progressive idea that they just invented these 5 minutes ago is galling. Lots of people in the past were conscientious and just did these things as a matter of course because it was the right thing to do; now people need some sort of "seal of approval" from a DIE committee to identify them as not evil. (At least for the moment.)

All your emotionally-laden terms aside, you'll find that even a cursory look at recent history doesn't bear this out. We were much more tolerant of "jerks" and their behaviour, and it was widespread and normalized. It doesn't take a whole lot of "jerks" to make the workplace a miserable shithole, and there was an abundance of them.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 24, 2022, 08:26:30 AM

Quote
So how do you prove that you "*distribute work and opportunities in an equitable manner"?

That's not a negative. And even if it was, Kron3007 did not suggest you had to prove it was true, merely that you had to describe your lab and its operations with an eye to showing that you're aware of the ways in which systemic barriers might potentially manifest, and that your lab is not a place where they do so.

That's like enumerating the ways a person might die; murder, lightning strike, shark attack, etc. The potential list is endless. Seriously, is someone going to actually say "You know, some researchers put all the women in one office and the men in another, but since I'm enlightened I don't do that." ?????

The very fact that the kinds of discrimination people have observed are often very subtle means that it's ridiculous to pretend to have considered them all. Does saying "The newest person in the lab gets the vacant desk" count as OK, given that the vacant desk is probably the one near the rumbling machine and that's why everyone avoids it if they can?

Quote

QuoteWho actually has a written policy that "females take notes"?

Presumably, nobody. But there are some places where that's how things shake out. The idea is to be sufficiently aware of this stereotyped tendency that it's not one manifested in the spaces over which one is responsible.

Again, there's no way to possibly forsee every way things "might shake out" that might look bad.

Looking for "systemic" discrimination is like p-hacking; if you don't restrict yourself on what might count as "discrimination" in advance, then there will always be room to "find" it in any situation with enough variables.

(As John McWhorter says, "All roads lead to racism.")

Quote

Quote
*All the things that for decades were considered just decent professional behaviour. And for decades the people who didn't do those things were known for being jerks. The progressive idea that they just invented these 5 minutes ago is galling. Lots of people in the past were conscientious and just did these things as a matter of course because it was the right thing to do; now people need some sort of "seal of approval" from a DIE committee to identify them as not evil. (At least for the moment.)

All your emotionally-laden terms aside, you'll find that even a cursory look at recent history doesn't bear this out. We were much more tolerant of "jerks" and their behaviour, and it was widespread and normalized. It doesn't take a whole lot of "jerks" to make the workplace a miserable shithole, and there was an abundance of them.

Then deal with them as "standards of professional behaviour". There's no need to frame them as discrimination, and in many cases, the jerks were jerks to just about everyone they encountered.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 24, 2022, 08:26:30 AM

Quote
*All the things that for decades were considered just decent professional behaviour. And for decades the people who didn't do those things were known for being jerks. The progressive idea that they just invented these 5 minutes ago is galling. Lots of people in the past were conscientious and just did these things as a matter of course because it was the right thing to do; now people need some sort of "seal of approval" from a DIE committee to identify them as not evil. (At least for the moment.)

All your emotionally-laden terms aside, you'll find that even a cursory look at recent history doesn't bear this out. We were much more tolerant of "jerks" and their behaviour, and it was widespread and normalized. It doesn't take a whole lot of "jerks" to make the workplace a miserable shithole, and there was an abundance of them.

Oh the type of jerks in the workplace that you two are discussing is only one type. there are others. Some of them seem brand new or almost new. Like the person who thinks being against racism is an attitude that dates back five years or so, and how that jerk thinks the attitude against racism became, of necessity and also legitimately expertized and handed over to a select few.
And there are students who think these folks are jerks, too. Don't doubt it.
Since many of us seem to report, anecdotally, serious slippage in student performance in recent years, or at least the shock of being shot out of a cannon into a new teaching situation in which the students are either much less prepared for college, or much less energetic scholastically than we expected, or both, I have an interest that I will mention. I wonder to what extent the helicopter DEI police hovering over faculty might convey a lack of trust of us to students. And how that might affect their thinking and performance.

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 24, 2022, 09:48:05 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 24, 2022, 08:26:30 AM

Quote
So how do you prove that you "*distribute work and opportunities in an equitable manner"?

That's not a negative. And even if it was, Kron3007 did not suggest you had to prove it was true, merely that you had to describe your lab and its operations with an eye to showing that you're aware of the ways in which systemic barriers might potentially manifest, and that your lab is not a place where they do so.

That's like enumerating the ways a person might die; murder, lightning strike, shark attack, etc. The potential list is endless. Seriously, is someone going to actually say "You know, some researchers put all the women in one office and the men in another, but since I'm enlightened I don't do that." ?????

Grant applications typically have you list your potential outcomes. IRB applications require you to list potential harms and explain how you've guarded against or mitigated them. You would have us--an academic forum--believe that doing so is impossibly impractical?

Irrespective of what these applications should or should not require of us, the fact is that they require what they require. And, as has been explained to you, the requirements are not particularly onerous. The objections you raise are made of straw, and thus are not at all compelling.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 24, 2022, 01:39:43 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 24, 2022, 09:48:05 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 24, 2022, 08:26:30 AM

Quote
So how do you prove that you "*distribute work and opportunities in an equitable manner"?

That's not a negative. And even if it was, Kron3007 did not suggest you had to prove it was true, merely that you had to describe your lab and its operations with an eye to showing that you're aware of the ways in which systemic barriers might potentially manifest, and that your lab is not a place where they do so.

That's like enumerating the ways a person might die; murder, lightning strike, shark attack, etc. The potential list is endless. Seriously, is someone going to actually say "You know, some researchers put all the women in one office and the men in another, but since I'm enlightened I don't do that." ?????

Grant applications typically have you list your potential outcomes. IRB applications require you to list potential harms and explain how you've guarded against or mitigated them. You would have us--an academic forum--believe that doing so is impossibly impractical?

IRB applications are about potential harm to subjects, not to researchers. So unless the research involves moving in with subjects for several hours a day over many months, there is much less scope for potential outcomes that might be harmful. Whereas for the lab itself, it's a different story. Research groups have lots of *informal interactions over many months, and all of those social interactions have the potential for someone to be upset by them. (There are many threads on here by grad students discussing the kinds of situations that they have found upsetting.) These difficulties happen even in homogenous groups, but as soon as the idea of "inclusion" arises, any problem that would have previously been considered just normal ups and downs of human groups now have the potential to be blamed on discrimination. To try to prove in advance that such a thing can't happen is impossible.


*For example, if someone in the group invites a bunch of people in the group to their house for a BBQ, does not inviting someone count as discrimination?

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 25, 2022, 06:22:41 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 24, 2022, 01:39:43 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 24, 2022, 09:48:05 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 24, 2022, 08:26:30 AM

Quote
So how do you prove that you "*distribute work and opportunities in an equitable manner"?

That's not a negative. And even if it was, Kron3007 did not suggest you had to prove it was true, merely that you had to describe your lab and its operations with an eye to showing that you're aware of the ways in which systemic barriers might potentially manifest, and that your lab is not a place where they do so.

That's like enumerating the ways a person might die; murder, lightning strike, shark attack, etc. The potential list is endless. Seriously, is someone going to actually say "You know, some researchers put all the women in one office and the men in another, but since I'm enlightened I don't do that." ?????

Grant applications typically have you list your potential outcomes. IRB applications require you to list potential harms and explain how you've guarded against or mitigated them. You would have us--an academic forum--believe that doing so is impossibly impractical?

IRB applications are about potential harm to subjects, not to researchers. So unless the research involves moving in with subjects for several hours a day over many months, there is much less scope for potential outcomes that might be harmful. Whereas for the lab itself, it's a different story. Research groups have lots of *informal interactions over many months, and all of those social interactions have the potential for someone to be upset by them. (There are many threads on here by grad students discussing the kinds of situations that they have found upsetting.) These difficulties happen even in homogenous groups, but as soon as the idea of "inclusion" arises, any problem that would have previously been considered just normal ups and downs of human groups now have the potential to be blamed on discrimination. To try to prove in advance that such a thing can't happen is impossible.


*For example, if someone in the group invites a bunch of people in the group to their house for a BBQ, does not inviting someone count as discrimination?

If you are the PI or in a position of authority, I would say that it would be inappropriate to invite a subset of the lab to your house for a BBQ, especially if the division was along the lines of gender or race.  My former advisor told me that her new dean held a "meat  and greet" BBQ where he only invited male faculty.  If you dont see an issue (or two) there, it is on you.

Some areas of EDI are a little nebulous, but some are quite clear.  For example, as a society we have decided that we should be more accommodating to people with physical disabilities.  In that vein, if you want to build a new public building you need to include accessible washrooms, ramps, etc.   The government could have left it there and just said you have to do it, but when you request your permit, you have to include the specific design you are using to ensure you are compliant.  When you submit it, they review your plan to make sure it meets code and accessibility standards.

This is essentially the same thing.  They have said that any public research lab/group has to be structured to prevent discrimination and promote an inclusive work environment.  When you submit your proposal, you simply have to tell them the specific things you have done/are doing to meet those standards.  Seems pretty straight forward really.  FOr the larger grants it goesa little too far IMO (as I have mentioned), but the basic premise seems reasonable.

Earlier I mentioned women ending up taking notes and you scoffed and said that no one has a rule that only women take the notes.  This is true, but if you ask female academics (especially if they are older) they will tell you that it is a problem.  Likewise, there have never been any rules that state you cannot install ramps and wheelchair accessible washrooms, but if you dont have a rule specifically mandating it, many people will just overlook it since it is not immediately relevant to them.  So, there are many examples where it makes sense to ensure people are taking pro-active measures to promote inclusivity etc. 

Will EDI sections fix the problem, not a chance, but they do make you reflect on how you run your lab and consider these topics.  In fact, without the EDI sections we would not be having this very conversation.  If it were not for EDI requirements, I may have overlooked accessibility in the infrastructure proposal I am currently working on.  It is about slow and consistent change in social attitudes.  When I think back to my childhood, it is apparent that many of the terms and jokes we used were not appropriate and my children would never say them.  That is progress.

 

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 25, 2022, 07:18:28 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 25, 2022, 06:22:41 AM

IRB applications are about potential harm to subjects, not to researchers. So unless the research involves moving in with subjects for several hours a day over many months, there is much less scope for potential outcomes that might be harmful. Whereas for the lab itself, it's a different story. Research groups have lots of *informal interactions over many months, and all of those social interactions have the potential for someone to be upset by them. (There are many threads on here by grad students discussing the kinds of situations that they have found upsetting.) These difficulties happen even in homogenous groups, but as soon as the idea of "inclusion" arises, any problem that would have previously been considered just normal ups and downs of human groups now have the potential to be blamed on discrimination. To try to prove in advance that such a thing can't happen is impossible.


*For example, if someone in the group invites a bunch of people in the group to their house for a BBQ, does not inviting someone count as discrimination?

If you are the PI or in a position of authority, I would say that it would be inappropriate to invite a subset of the lab to your house for a BBQ, especially if the division was along the lines of gender or race.  My former advisor told me that her new dean held a "meat  and greet" BBQ where he only invited male faculty.  If you dont see an issue (or two) there, it is on you.

I agree that the PI has responsibilities beyond other members of the group. But for that example, what if it's not the PI, but one of the grad students hosting the party? Does the PI need to force the grad student to invite everyone, like the parent telling the kid "you can hang out with your friends, but you have to take your little brother along"? Is inviting a known vegan to a BBQ inclusive or insensitive?


If grad students are carpooling to a conference, and the car doesn't have room for everyone, is it the PI's job to ensure that the "new person" is in the carpool rather than someone else?

Quote
They have said that any public research lab/group has to be structured to prevent discrimination and promote an inclusive work environment. 

It's this last phrase that is so vague that it's not clear that it wouldn't be violated by the examples above.
It would be a truly oppressive environment if it prevented any kind of situation, at work or outside on personal time, from raising any of those kinds of issues.

Quote
When you submit your proposal, you simply have to tell them the specific things you have done/are doing to meet those standards.  Seems pretty straight forward really.  FOr the larger grants it goesa little too far IMO (as I have mentioned), but the basic premise seems reasonable.

Earlier I mentioned women ending up taking notes and you scoffed and said that no one has a rule that only women take the notes.  This is true, but if you ask female academics (especially if they are older) they will tell you that it is a problem. 

I have no doubt that those sorts of things happened, but again the issue of granularity matters. Other than having "inclusion inspections" at random times, it's hard to imagine how much could be codified in advance that wouldn't allow any number of small things that might be considered a failure to " promote an inclusive work environment."

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 25, 2022, 08:21:57 AM
I agree that the PI has responsibilities beyond other members of the group. But for that example, what if it's not the PI, but one of the grad students hosting the party? Does the PI need to force the grad student to invite everyone, like the parent telling the kid "you can hang out with your friends, but you have to take your little brother along"? Is inviting a known vegan to a BBQ inclusive or insensitive?

This is a total straw man argument. No of course not, no one has ever suggested policing the social lives of grad students, and this isn't the sort of thing anyone would ever put in a grant. Do you honestly think it is, or are you simply coming up with the most silly slippery slope arguments you can think of?

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 25, 2022, 08:21:57 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 25, 2022, 07:18:28 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 25, 2022, 06:22:41 AM

IRB applications are about potential harm to subjects, not to researchers. So unless the research involves moving in with subjects for several hours a day over many months, there is much less scope for potential outcomes that might be harmful. Whereas for the lab itself, it's a different story. Research groups have lots of *informal interactions over many months, and all of those social interactions have the potential for someone to be upset by them. (There are many threads on here by grad students discussing the kinds of situations that they have found upsetting.) These difficulties happen even in homogenous groups, but as soon as the idea of "inclusion" arises, any problem that would have previously been considered just normal ups and downs of human groups now have the potential to be blamed on discrimination. To try to prove in advance that such a thing can't happen is impossible.


*For example, if someone in the group invites a bunch of people in the group to their house for a BBQ, does not inviting someone count as discrimination?

If you are the PI or in a position of authority, I would say that it would be inappropriate to invite a subset of the lab to your house for a BBQ, especially if the division was along the lines of gender or race.  My former advisor told me that her new dean held a "meat  and greet" BBQ where he only invited male faculty.  If you dont see an issue (or two) there, it is on you.

I agree that the PI has responsibilities beyond other members of the group. But for that example, what if it's not the PI, but one of the grad students hosting the party? Does the PI need to force the grad student to invite everyone, like the parent telling the kid "you can hang out with your friends, but you have to take your little brother along"? Is inviting a known vegan to a BBQ inclusive or insensitive?


If grad students are carpooling to a conference, and the car doesn't have room for everyone, is it the PI's job to ensure that the "new person" is in the carpool rather than someone else?

Quote
They have said that any public research lab/group has to be structured to prevent discrimination and promote an inclusive work environment. 

It's this last phrase that is so vague that it's not clear that it wouldn't be violated by the examples above.
It would be a truly oppressive environment if it prevented any kind of situation, at work or outside on personal time, from raising any of those kinds of issues.

Quote
When you submit your proposal, you simply have to tell them the specific things you have done/are doing to meet those standards.  Seems pretty straight forward really.  FOr the larger grants it goesa little too far IMO (as I have mentioned), but the basic premise seems reasonable.

Earlier I mentioned women ending up taking notes and you scoffed and said that no one has a rule that only women take the notes.  This is true, but if you ask female academics (especially if they are older) they will tell you that it is a problem. 

I have no doubt that those sorts of things happened, but again the issue of granularity matters. Other than having "inclusion inspections" at random times, it's hard to imagine how much could be codified in advance that wouldn't allow any number of small things that might be considered a failure to " promote an inclusive work environment."

What my students/staff do in their personal time is not my concern.  This issue is mostly a red herring.  For conference travel, if I am supporting travel, then I should help to ensure that everyone is included and provided equal access.  If they are paying their own way, that is out of my control and is their concern. 

As for the EDI "inspectors" etc., that is just silly.  No one has claimed that the EDI sections are perfect, or that they will eliminate all barriers.  I think the most useful aspect is actually the self reflection aspect, and putting these things down on paper.  Hopefully, down the road these things will all just be a given and there will be no need for it.

Whatever the truth is about all that, Kron and I agree the DEI culture goes too far, and the people who have to play their game in order to get their grant money and jobs are not going to do anything about it. That means, in my opinion, Jordan Peterson is doing something we need someone to do, namely, start the serious debate. Even if Para's all-out-attack on Peterson's reputation and work are true (and I certainly won't assume they are; after all Peterson was awarded tenure and subsequent promotions all the way to emeritus, which makes Para odd man out on the voting.)

Quote from: mahagonny on January 26, 2022, 06:24:21 AM
Even if Para's all-out-attack on Peterson's reputation and work are true (and I certainly won't assume they are; after all Peterson was awarded tenure and subsequent promotions all the way to emeritus, which makes Para odd man out on the voting.)

Trust me when I tell you that an all-out attack would involve tearing Maps of Meaning apart sentence by sentence, page by page. I'd be tempted to do it as a gift to The Fora (or indeed the world), but I have a hatchling and a book deadline, so it'll have to wait.

In the meantime, though, the guy just debunks himself:

Quote
Peterson: Well, that's 'cause there's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word, and that's what bothers me about the climate change types. It's like, this is something that bothers me about it, technically. It's like climate is about everything. Ok. But your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables — which are everything — to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation, if it's about everything? That's not just a criticism, that's like, if it's about everything, your models aren't right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.

Rogan: What do you mean by 'everything'?

Peterson: Well that's what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim in some sense. We have to change everything... The same with the word environment. That word means so much that it actually doesn't mean anything. Like when you say everything, like in a sense that's meaningless. What's the difference between the environment and everything? There's no difference. What's the difference between climate and everything? Well, there's no difference.

Yea, verily, a thought-leader for our times!

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 26, 2022, 09:02:15 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 26, 2022, 06:24:21 AM
Even if Para's all-out-attack on Peterson's reputation and work are true (and I certainly won't assume they are; after all Peterson was awarded tenure and subsequent promotions all the way to emeritus, which makes Para odd man out on the voting.)

Trust me when I tell you that an all-out attack would involve tearing Maps of Meaning apart sentence by sentence, page by page. I'd be tempted to do it as a gift to The Fora (or indeed the world), but I have a hatchling and a book deadline, so it'll have to wait.

In the meantime, though, the guy just debunks himself:

Quote
Peterson: Well, that's 'cause there's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word, and that's what bothers me about the climate change types. It's like, this is something that bothers me about it, technically. It's like climate is about everything. Ok. But your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables — which are everything — to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation, if it's about everything? That's not just a criticism, that's like, if it's about everything, your models aren't right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.

Rogan: What do you mean by 'everything'?

Peterson: Well that's what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim in some sense. We have to change everything... The same with the word environment. That word means so much that it actually doesn't mean anything. Like when you say everything, like in a sense that's meaningless. What's the difference between the environment and everything? There's no difference. What's the difference between climate and everything? Well, there's no difference.

Yea, verily, a thought-leader for our times!

Climate change isn't his specific area of expertise, so what he says on it doesn't matter that much. However, given that one of his points consistently is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, then I would imagine a big part of his point is that many people supposedly concerned about climate change are not very careful about their own contributions, such as use of smartphones and bitcoin, but like to protest against governments, corporations, etc. If that's his point, I agree with it.

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 26, 2022, 09:21:02 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 26, 2022, 09:02:15 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 26, 2022, 06:24:21 AM
Even if Para's all-out-attack on Peterson's reputation and work are true (and I certainly won't assume they are; after all Peterson was awarded tenure and subsequent promotions all the way to emeritus, which makes Para odd man out on the voting.)

Trust me when I tell you that an all-out attack would involve tearing Maps of Meaning apart sentence by sentence, page by page. I'd be tempted to do it as a gift to The Fora (or indeed the world), but I have a hatchling and a book deadline, so it'll have to wait.

In the meantime, though, the guy just debunks himself:

Quote
Peterson: Well, that's 'cause there's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word, and that's what bothers me about the climate change types. It's like, this is something that bothers me about it, technically. It's like climate is about everything. Ok. But your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables — which are everything — to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation, if it's about everything? That's not just a criticism, that's like, if it's about everything, your models aren't right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.

Rogan: What do you mean by 'everything'?

Peterson: Well that's what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim in some sense. We have to change everything... The same with the word environment. That word means so much that it actually doesn't mean anything. Like when you say everything, like in a sense that's meaningless. What's the difference between the environment and everything? There's no difference. What's the difference between climate and everything? Well, there's no difference.

Yea, verily, a thought-leader for our times!

Climate change isn't his specific area of expertise, so what he says on it doesn't matter that much. However, given that one of his points consistently is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, then I would imagine a big part of his point is that many people supposedly concerned about climate change are not very careful about their own contributions, such as use of smartphones and bitcoin, but like to protest against governments, corporations, etc. If that's his point, I agree with it.

How do you derive that point from the above? The above is word salad. It doesn't make enough sense to agree or disagree with. The above makes me seriously question whether he was high while doing this interview. This is the sort of thing I'd expect from a late night dorm conversation among high undergraduates.

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 26, 2022, 09:21:02 AM

Climate change isn't his specific area of expertise, so what he says on it doesn't matter that much.

In addition to Puget's point, I'll just add that very few things are in his area of expertise, but it doesn't stop him from pronouncing on them. His tenure case was built around Maps of Meaning, which is about everything except his area of academic expertise. It's also word salad, and completely false and wrong when anything cogent is even discernible. Consider his arguments for God's existence, which rest on a total botching of Gödel's incompleteness theorems--the kind of botching that was common among non-mathematicians in the early twentieth century, but which undergraduates learn to avoid now.

But that shouldn't be surprising, because he's an academic psychologist who still believes Jung and Campbell got things mostly right. He may or may not have done substantive scholarship on alcoholism and addiction. None of the rest of it is, however. Choose a better Messiah.

Quote from: Puget on January 26, 2022, 09:46:02 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 26, 2022, 09:21:02 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 26, 2022, 09:02:15 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 26, 2022, 06:24:21 AM
Even if Para's all-out-attack on Peterson's reputation and work are true (and I certainly won't assume they are; after all Peterson was awarded tenure and subsequent promotions all the way to emeritus, which makes Para odd man out on the voting.)

Trust me when I tell you that an all-out attack would involve tearing Maps of Meaning apart sentence by sentence, page by page. I'd be tempted to do it as a gift to The Fora (or indeed the world), but I have a hatchling and a book deadline, so it'll have to wait.

In the meantime, though, the guy just debunks himself:

Quote
Peterson: Well, that's 'cause there's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word, and that's what bothers me about the climate change types. It's like, this is something that bothers me about it, technically. It's like climate is about everything. Ok. But your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables — which are everything — to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation, if it's about everything? That's not just a criticism, that's like, if it's about everything, your models aren't right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.

Rogan: What do you mean by 'everything'?

Peterson: Well that's what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim in some sense. We have to change everything... The same with the word environment. That word means so much that it actually doesn't mean anything. Like when you say everything, like in a sense that's meaningless. What's the difference between the environment and everything? There's no difference. What's the difference between climate and everything? Well, there's no difference.

Yea, verily, a thought-leader for our times!

Climate change isn't his specific area of expertise, so what he says on it doesn't matter that much. However, given that one of his points consistently is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, then I would imagine a big part of his point is that many people supposedly concerned about climate change are not very careful about their own contributions, such as use of smartphones and bitcoin, but like to protest against governments, corporations, etc. If that's his point, I agree with it.

How do you derive that point from the above? The above is word salad. It doesn't make enough sense to agree or disagree with. The above makes me seriously question whether he was high while doing this interview. This is the sort of thing I'd expect from a late night dorm conversation among high undergraduates.

I've noticed people doing this on other threads (and IRL).

'Well, if this person was making a different point than the one they were quoted making it's actually quite reasonable.'

I would guess it's to do with giving someone the benefit of the doubt if you are sympathetic to their views. Or perhaps if you've heard them make reasonable arguments on other topics? But profs with celebrity status are frequently being asked (and offering) their views on things outside their area of expertise.

And people seem selective about when they apply arguments from authority. I doubt anyone who says Peterson   must know what he's talking about because he is an emeritus professor would take a similar stance regarding a prof whose opinion is favorable towards policies related to diversity and inclusivity initiatives, no matter how many honors and awards they can claim.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 26, 2022, 09:02:15 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 26, 2022, 06:24:21 AM
Even if Para's all-out-attack on Peterson's reputation and work are true (and I certainly won't assume they are; after all Peterson was awarded tenure and subsequent promotions all the way to emeritus, which makes Para odd man out on the voting.)

Trust me when I tell you that an all-out attack would involve tearing Maps of Meaning apart sentence by sentence, page by page. I'd be tempted to do it as a gift to The Fora (or indeed the world), but I have a hatchling and a book deadline, so it'll have to wait.

He's only one man, and he's retired now, so better that that waits than that a serious look at the Diversity
Industrial Complex tyrant and all of its wonderful effects waits.

Quote from: smallcleanrat on January 26, 2022, 10:35:24 AM

Quote from: Puget on January 26, 2022, 09:46:02 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 26, 2022, 09:21:02 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 26, 2022, 09:02:15 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 26, 2022, 06:24:21 AM
Even if Para's all-out-attack on Peterson's reputation and work are true (and I certainly won't assume they are; after all Peterson was awarded tenure and subsequent promotions all the way to emeritus, which makes Para odd man out on the voting.)

Trust me when I tell you that an all-out attack would involve tearing Maps of Meaning apart sentence by sentence, page by page. I'd be tempted to do it as a gift to The Fora (or indeed the world), but I have a hatchling and a book deadline, so it'll have to wait.

In the meantime, though, the guy just debunks himself:

Quote
Peterson: Well, that's 'cause there's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word, and that's what bothers me about the climate change types. It's like, this is something that bothers me about it, technically. It's like climate is about everything. Ok. But your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables — which are everything — to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation, if it's about everything? That's not just a criticism, that's like, if it's about everything, your models aren't right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.

Rogan: What do you mean by 'everything'?

Peterson: Well that's what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim in some sense. We have to change everything... The same with the word environment. That word means so much that it actually doesn't mean anything. Like when you say everything, like in a sense that's meaningless. What's the difference between the environment and everything? There's no difference. What's the difference between climate and everything? Well, there's no difference.

Yea, verily, a thought-leader for our times!

Climate change isn't his specific area of expertise, so what he says on it doesn't matter that much. However, given that one of his points consistently is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, then I would imagine a big part of his point is that many people supposedly concerned about climate change are not very careful about their own contributions, such as use of smartphones and bitcoin, but like to protest against governments, corporations, etc. If that's his point, I agree with it.

How do you derive that point from the above? The above is word salad. It doesn't make enough sense to agree or disagree with. The above makes me seriously question whether he was high while doing this interview. This is the sort of thing I'd expect from a late night dorm conversation among high undergraduates.

I've noticed people doing this on other threads (and IRL).

'Well, if this person was making a different point than the one they were quoted making it's actually quite reasonable.'

I would guess it's to do with giving someone the benefit of the doubt if you are sympathetic to their views. Or perhaps if you've heard them make reasonable arguments on other topics? But profs with celebrity status are frequently being asked (and offering) their views on things outside their area of expertise.

And people seem selective about when they apply arguments from authority. I doubt anyone who says Peterson   must know what he's talking about because he is an emeritus professor would take a similar stance regarding a prof whose opinion is favorable towards policies related to diversity and inclusivity initiatives, no matter how many honors and awards they can claim.

Are you saying that unconscious biases actually do exist?  Marshy would deny this, yet shows it to be true...

I'm not posting a piece about Dr. Peterson because I hope to win an argument by appealing to authority. I just posted it because it's interesting. I consider the Diversity Industrial Complex a menace by my own observation from a variety of sources, and I predict (and also hope) it will receive a hearty repudiation at the voting polls over the next few years. See, the lay public is not more informed or intelligent than academia. Just more honest.
ETA: What's been in short supply is not information. It's honesty.

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 26, 2022, 10:41:16 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on January 26, 2022, 10:35:24 AM

Quote from: Puget on January 26, 2022, 09:46:02 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 26, 2022, 09:21:02 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 26, 2022, 09:02:15 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 26, 2022, 06:24:21 AM
Even if Para's all-out-attack on Peterson's reputation and work are true (and I certainly won't assume they are; after all Peterson was awarded tenure and subsequent promotions all the way to emeritus, which makes Para odd man out on the voting.)

Trust me when I tell you that an all-out attack would involve tearing Maps of Meaning apart sentence by sentence, page by page. I'd be tempted to do it as a gift to The Fora (or indeed the world), but I have a hatchling and a book deadline, so it'll have to wait.

In the meantime, though, the guy just debunks himself:

Quote
Peterson: Well, that's 'cause there's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word, and that's what bothers me about the climate change types. It's like, this is something that bothers me about it, technically. It's like climate is about everything. Ok. But your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables — which are everything — to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation, if it's about everything? That's not just a criticism, that's like, if it's about everything, your models aren't right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.

Rogan: What do you mean by 'everything'?

Peterson: Well that's what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim in some sense. We have to change everything... The same with the word environment. That word means so much that it actually doesn't mean anything. Like when you say everything, like in a sense that's meaningless. What's the difference between the environment and everything? There's no difference. What's the difference between climate and everything? Well, there's no difference.

Yea, verily, a thought-leader for our times!

Climate change isn't his specific area of expertise, so what he says on it doesn't matter that much. However, given that one of his points consistently is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, then I would imagine a big part of his point is that many people supposedly concerned about climate change are not very careful about their own contributions, such as use of smartphones and bitcoin, but like to protest against governments, corporations, etc. If that's his point, I agree with it.

How do you derive that point from the above? The above is word salad. It doesn't make enough sense to agree or disagree with. The above makes me seriously question whether he was high while doing this interview. This is the sort of thing I'd expect from a late night dorm conversation among high undergraduates.

I've noticed people doing this on other threads (and IRL).

'Well, if this person was making a different point than the one they were quoted making it's actually quite reasonable.'

I would guess it's to do with giving someone the benefit of the doubt if you are sympathetic to their views. Or perhaps if you've heard them make reasonable arguments on other topics? But profs with celebrity status are frequently being asked (and offering) their views on things outside their area of expertise.

And people seem selective about when they apply arguments from authority. I doubt anyone who says Peterson   must know what he's talking about because he is an emeritus professor would take a similar stance regarding a prof whose opinion is favorable towards policies related to diversity and inclusivity initiatives, no matter how many honors and awards they can claim.

Are you saying that unconscious biases actually do exist?  Marshy would deny this, yet shows it to be true...

When  have I said unconscious bias doesn't exist? Bias is very real, and my objection to ideas like "systemic" discrimination is precisely that such ill-defined terms allow the bias of people to find it everywhere they look. The way to reduce bias is to make objective criteria, and have them evaluated where possible by people who have as little idea as possible about who or what is being evaluated and why. Hence the "gold standard" in medicine of double-blind studies.

As far as people being consulted about topics beyond their areas of expertise, we live in a culture where celebrities are quoted on their views about virtually any topic, and people who agree with their views will hold up the celebrity status of the person as giving more weight to the view than they would to an average person on the street, or a celebrity with an opposing viewpoint.

As I said, Peterson's views on climate change aren't that important to me because it's not his field. So the context of the "word salad" doesn't matter a lot for that reason. If there are examples of word salad where he's talking about something like mental health, then I'd pay more attention.
 

OK, then you support the EDI requirements.  You basically wrote one and get a gold star!

As for climate change not being his expertise, neither are gender ID, or systemic barriers/discrimination...

Of course you never said unconscious bias doesn't exist, Marshy. Bias can be one of many factors that contribute to outcomes.
The purpose of the DEI complex is not what they claim though. It's political power strategy for the democrats, a way for universities to keep up with the Joneses (advertise they are vigorously competing with each other for the most cutting edge bias-sniffing techniques) and maybe one or two other duplicitous reasons. Government bloat is a useful counterpart to administrative bloat in universities. DEI teams consume academic research that would barely get read otherwise. All these probably have something to do with the strong reactions here.

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 26, 2022, 11:50:05 AM
OK, then you support the EDI requirements.  You basically wrote one and get a gold star!

As for climate change not being his expertise, neither are gender ID, or systemic barriers/discrimination...

Once everything is expertized, the experts will have total rule.

Quote
When  have I said unconscious bias doesn't exist? Bias is very real, and my objection to ideas like "systemic" discrimination is precisely that such ill-defined terms allow the bias of people to find it everywhere they look. The way to reduce bias is to make objective criteria, and have them evaluated where possible by people who have as little idea as possible about who or what is being evaluated and why. Hence the "gold standard" in medicine of double-blind studies.

Your method is boring, because it doesn't point a finger at a villain, 'the system' (code for 'white supremacy, white privilege' jargon) so it doesn't have any legs politically.

Quote from: mahagonny on January 26, 2022, 11:50:20 AM
Of course you never said unconscious bias doesn't exist, Marshy. Bias can be one of many factors that contribute to outcomes.
The purpose of the DEI complex is not what they claim though. It's political power strategy for the democrats, a way for universities to keep up with the Joneses (advertise they are vigorously competing with each other for the most cutting edge bias-sniffing techniques) and maybe one or two other duplicitous reasons. Government bloat is a useful counterpart to administrative bloat in universities. DEI teams consume academic research that would barely get read otherwise. All these probably have something to do with the strong reactions here.

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 26, 2022, 11:50:05 AM
OK, then you support the EDI requirements.  You basically wrote one and get a gold star!

As for climate change not being his expertise, neither are gender ID, or systemic barriers/discrimination...

Once everything is expertized, the experts will have total rule.

Quote
When  have I said unconscious bias doesn't exist? Bias is very real, and my objection to ideas like "systemic" discrimination is precisely that such ill-defined terms allow the bias of people to find it everywhere they look. The way to reduce bias is to make objective criteria, and have them evaluated where possible by people who have as little idea as possible about who or what is being evaluated and why. Hence the "gold standard" in medicine of double-blind studies.

Your method is boring, because it doesn't point a finger at a villain, 'the system' (code for 'white supremacy, white privilege' jargon) so it doesn't have any legs politically.

Peterson is in Canada, speaking about Canadian EDI requirements, so I dont know that it is a democrat conspiracy. 

Experts are experts for a reason.  Discrediting expertise is the real problem.  You are feeding the Russians (or are they feeding you?)!

As for his method being boring, it is essentially what I have in my EDI section.  "...Applicants will be assessed based on objective, predetermined, criteria to mitigate unconscious bias...".  Like I said, Marshy basically started an EDI section in his response and already got the gold star.  You can very easily write a solid EDI plan even if you dont think barriers exist.  All you have to do is show what you are doing that makes this true. 

The new liberal orthodoxy is cross-continental; it thrives in Europe too although of the notable academics and 'experts' in such made-up fields as 'antiracism' are probably mostly American, so they should probably get most of the credit for the whole toxic plague. It's just in the United States where the democrats are the ones to cash in.
Nobody is particularly that expert on which set of genitalia you own.

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 26, 2022, 11:24:32 AM

As far as people being consulted about topics beyond their areas of expertise, we live in a culture where celebrities are quoted on their views about virtually any topic, and people who agree with their views will hold up the celebrity status of the person as giving more weight to the view than they would to an average person on the street, or a celebrity with an opposing viewpoint.

Indeed. And when an expert systematically distorts or misrepresents positions he doesn't like--including those outside their field of expertise--then critical thinkers should pause, take a step back, and re-assess their deference to that person's expertise.

If you don't, then either you have no epistemic standards, or your standards suck.

Quote
As I said, Peterson's views on climate change aren't that important to me because it's not his field. So the context of the "word salad" doesn't matter a lot for that reason. If there are examples of word salad where he's talking about something like mental health, then I'd pay more attention.

Don't worry! He has tons to say about mental health and the origins of mental illness. The root of mental illness is a subset of death called 'complexity'. We perceive complexity as suffering, so the solution is control. The more complexity we experience, the more symptoms we develop. At the cultural level, this induces cultural degeneration. As he puts it so eloquently in Maps of Meaning:

QuoteThis "mental illness" (failure of culture, failure of heroism) is return to domination by the unknown—in mythological terms, expressed as involuntary incest (destructive union) with the Terrible Mother. (286)

There's a bazillion-part YouTube lecture series on the subject, too.

It even informs his clinical practice. As dismalist likes to say, ;)

Highly educated academics makes absurd pronouncements about my field all the time. Or some of them dabble in my field and think that because they have PhD in another field, they are naturally super-learners. I don't appreciate it, but doesn't cause me to doubt what they're saying in their own field. No one has ever called them out on these things, possibly.
The difference between them and Peterson is Peterson's on a cable talk show, so it gets disseminated, while these other guys are standing around in a function room near the bar.

Quote from: mahagonny on January 26, 2022, 02:46:53 PM
Highly educated academics makes absurd pronouncements about my field all the time. Or some of them dabble in my field and think that because they have PhD in another field, they are naturally super-learners. I don't appreciate it, but doesn't cause me to doubt what they're saying in their own field. No one has ever called them out on these things, possibly.
The difference between them and Peterson is Peterson's on a cable talk show, so it gets disseminated, while these other guys are standing around in a function room near the bar.

The problem is not the 'absurdity' as such, it's the inability or unwillingness to accurately characterize positions one disagrees with. That's a methodological flaw, and when we see it on display we ought to worry that it has contaminated other aspects of someone's research. Similarly, if you catch someone plagiarizing in your course, that's a good reason to have a closer look at their other coursework, too.


Of course, this is ultimately beside the point, because this whole thread is about an academic talking out of their ass about things beyond their expertise. We can excuse that kind of thing all we like, but we won't be doing so to preserve some insight he had in his own domain. As far as I can see, there's no good reason to excuse his PoMo bullshit beyond (inexplicably) thinking it's somehow true.

Like I said, fuck him, find a better Messiah. McWhorter is at least a competent linguist and not a total tilter at straw men.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 26, 2022, 02:01:15 PM
Don't worry! He has tons to say about mental health and the origins of mental illness. The root of mental illness is a subset of death called 'complexity'. We perceive complexity as suffering, so the solution is control. The more complexity we experience, the more symptoms we develop. At the cultural level, this induces cultural degeneration. As he puts it so eloquently in Maps of Meaning:

QuoteThis "mental illness" (failure of culture, failure of heroism) is return to domination by the unknown—in mythological terms, expressed as involuntary incest (destructive union) with the Terrible Mother. (286)

There's a bazillion-part YouTube lecture series on the subject, too.

It even informs his clinical practice. As dismalist likes to say, ;)

As a psychologist I in no way recognize this as belonging in my field. By that, I don't mean that don't like his viewpoint (if I could even figure out what that is here. I mean, I probably don't like his viewpoint, but that's beside the point), but that it bares so little resemblance to modern scientific psychology, both in thinking (though I honestly am not really sure what he is trying to say) and in writing style that if I didn't know he was supposedly a psychologist I would assume that he was in one of the humanities fields that still likes to talk about psychoanalytic stuff for some reason and seem to value being as hard to understand as possible. Look at any psychology paper from the last 30 years at least and you'll see what I mean-- it is going to sound much more like writing in any of the other sciences and not at all like this.

Good lord, no wonder his grad students can't get jobs!

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 26, 2022, 03:00:47 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 26, 2022, 02:46:53 PM
Highly educated academics makes absurd pronouncements about my field all the time. Or some of them dabble in my field and think that because they have PhD in another field, they are naturally super-learners. I don't appreciate it, but doesn't cause me to doubt what they're saying in their own field. No one has ever called them out on these things, possibly.
The difference between them and Peterson is Peterson's on a cable talk show, so it gets disseminated, while these other guys are standing around in a function room near the bar.

The problem is not the 'absurdity' as such, it's the inability or unwillingness to accurately characterize positions one disagrees with. That's a methodological flaw, and when we see it on display we ought to worry that it has contaminated other aspects of someone's research. Similarly, if you catch someone plagiarizing in your course, that's a good reason to have a closer look at their other coursework, too.


Of course, this is ultimately beside the point, because this whole thread is about an academic talking out of their ass about things beyond their expertise. We can excuse that kind of thing all we like, but we won't be doing so to preserve some insight he had in his own domain. As far as I can see, there's no good reason to excuse his PoMo bullshit beyond (inexplicably) thinking it's somehow true.

Like I said, fuck him, find a better Messiah. McWhorter is at least a competent linguist and not a total tilter at straw men.

Well, a messiah is a hard thing to find, but anyone who hates the same people, or at least their ideas and methods, as I do might be an ally. Putting people with horrible ideas out of business is hard work. You look for help where you can get it, within reason. As I said, I'm hoping the voting booth is going to bring down the curtain, at least a little bit, on the idiotic new 'liberal' tyranny, wokeism, the purported effort to 'dismantle white supremacy' and related stupidity the left peddles. Peterson and I are about on the same page with most of that.
ETA:
Did you see the program where Bill Maher tried to praise John McWhorter for his bravery and McWhorter was having none of it? Sometimes you don't need a Messiah as much as just a person with a little visibility who persists in looking for common sense even when it seems to be lacking all around him, and thankfully, won't shut up about it when nutty people are holding court. That's how McWhorter sees himself. And he is a gentleman, so you and I might both learn something from him. Of course, as soon as he gets a little wind in his sails, some jackass will call him an "Uncle Tom." And I suspect that person will be your ally.

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 26, 2022, 11:50:05 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 26, 2022, 11:24:32 AM
Bias is very real, and my objection to ideas like "systemic" discrimination is precisely that such ill-defined terms allow the bias of people to find it everywhere they look. The way to reduce bias is to make objective criteria, and have them evaluated where possible by people who have as little idea as possible about who or what is being evaluated and why. Hence the "gold standard" in medicine of double-blind studies.

OK, then you support the EDI requirements.  You basically wrote one and get a gold star!

I must respectfully decline the gold star as I do not deserve it.

The reason the double-blind study is the "gold standard" is that it is the best that can possibly be achieved. In reality, there are countless situations where it isn't possible.

Suppose I want to do research on TA interventions in the lab. The TAs and students are both diverse groups, and they are not randomly assigned, since things like scheduling dictate where they wind up. In order for TAs to do their jobs in the lab, they must interact with students face-to-face. If there is bias, conscious or unconscious, in either direction, then it cannot be avoided. Even if it were somehow possible to selectively assign both students and TAs to control for this, the results of the research would therefore be less relevant to the real-world lab situations that they're supposed to be studying.

Unless their mandate is extremely tightly-defined, the zealousness of EDI committees to prevent potential "harm" could result in virtually anything being forbidden.

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 27, 2022, 06:03:28 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on January 26, 2022, 11:50:05 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on January 26, 2022, 11:24:32 AM
Bias is very real, and my objection to ideas like "systemic" discrimination is precisely that such ill-defined terms allow the bias of people to find it everywhere they look. The way to reduce bias is to make objective criteria, and have them evaluated where possible by people who have as little idea as possible about who or what is being evaluated and why. Hence the "gold standard" in medicine of double-blind studies.

OK, then you support the EDI requirements.  You basically wrote one and get a gold star!

I must respectfully decline the gold star as I do not deserve it.

The reason the double-blind study is the "gold standard" is that it is the best that can possibly be achieved. In reality, there are countless situations where it isn't possible.

Suppose I want to do research on TA interventions in the lab. The TAs and students are both diverse groups, and they are not randomly assigned, since things like scheduling dictate where they wind up. In order for TAs to do their jobs in the lab, they must interact with students face-to-face. If there is bias, conscious or unconscious, in either direction, then it cannot be avoided. Even if it were somehow possible to selectively assign both students and TAs to control for this, the results of the research would therefore be less relevant to the real-world lab situations that they're supposed to be studying.

Unless their mandate is extremely tightly-defined, the zealousness of EDI committees to prevent potential "harm" could result in virtually anything being forbidden.

Yes, a double blind clinical trial is the gold standard, but as you say, it is not always possible.  In cases where we cannot run a double blind clinical trial, we don't just ignore the potential for confounding factors to influence the results, we take pro-active measures to account for them and recognize that there are still potential biases when we interpret the outcomes.  This is the same with EDI, we cannot make everything random and completely fair so we are taking the steps that we can to reduce bias as much as possible.  This should be standard practice for any scientific study, but historically it has not been (ie most pre-clinical trials have historically been done with male populations only, crash test dummies were historically male, facial recognition software is racially biased, etc.).

In your example, you would not be required to randomize everything since it is an observational study and that is not possible.  However, you should acknowledge this fact and have a plan to consider it in your analysis and interpretation.  The EDI section is not necessarily about making things perfect, simply to recognize the issues and having a plan in place to minimize the issues. 

Personally, my research has no major human element so EDI dosnt really impact my experimental design etc.  For grant proposals I simply put that we considered EDI issues and determined they have no bearing on our experimental design and this has been fine.  That being said, I still have to address how EDI is considered in my recruiting and training plans, which seems reasonable.



 

 The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/27/word-salad-of-nonsense-scientists-denounce-jordan-petersons-comments-on-climate-models) covered a Jordan Peterson interview this week:

Quote from: Prof. Perkins-Kirkpatrick UNSWHe sounds intelligent, but he's completely wrong.
"He has no frickin' idea," she said.

Quote from: Hibush on January 29, 2022, 04:52:46 PM
The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/27/word-salad-of-nonsense-scientists-denounce-jordan-petersons-comments-on-climate-models) covered a Jordan Peterson interview this week:

Quote from: Prof. Perkins-Kirkpatrick UNSWHe sounds intelligent, but he's completely wrong.
"He has no frickin' idea," she said.

Neil Young, your public health advocate. Isn't one those guys on his third liver now?

Wondering: if qualified scientists can predict where human beings-induced climate change is going to lead us, do they all identify the same date in which the earth will be uninhabitable, given a model with the same factors?

ETA: Unfortunately I have reached my limit of free articles at the Guardian, so I can't reread today. And they're not getting one thin dime of my money, the commies!  Is there another way to access it?

Quote from: mahagonny on January 30, 2022, 06:17:21 AM


Wondering: if qualified scientists can predict where human beings-induced climate change is going to lead us, do they all identify the same date in which the earth will be uninhabitable, given a model with the same factors?

No, because that's not how it works. It's not like solving for x; climate is an incredibly complex system, and it's chaotic, which is to say that tiny changes in starting conditions can lead to outsized effects.

Besides which, worldwide uninhabitability isn't really the result that should interest us. There's a lot of very, very bad stuff before you get to that point.

Quote
ETA: Unfortunately I have reached my limit of free articles at the Guardian, so I can't reread today. And they're not getting one thin dime of my money, the commies!  Is there another way to access it?

Try your local or institutional libraries, or looking for the cached page.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 30, 2022, 09:30:37 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 30, 2022, 06:17:21 AM


Wondering: if qualified scientists can predict where human beings-induced climate change is going to lead us, do they all identify the same date in which the earth will be uninhabitable, given a model with the same factors?

No, because that's not how it works. It's not like solving for x; climate is an incredibly complex system, and it's chaotic, which is to say that tiny changes in starting conditions can lead to outsized effects.

Sounds pretty similar to what Dr. Peterson said in an interview I saw recently. The disagreement seems not to be over what could happen, but what to do right now. And who to hate.

Quote
Besides which, worldwide uninhabitability isn't really the result that should interest us. There's a lot of very, very bad stuff before you get to that point.

Like for example, as my friend Sheila would tell us, having bought property in Manhattan during the Bill DeBlasio years.

QuoteTry your local or institutional libraries, or looking for the cached page.

Thanks!

Quote from: mahagonny on January 30, 2022, 06:17:21 AM

Quote from: Hibush on January 29, 2022, 04:52:46 PM
The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/27/word-salad-of-nonsense-scientists-denounce-jordan-petersons-comments-on-climate-models) covered a Jordan Peterson interview this week:

Quote from: Prof. Perkins-Kirkpatrick UNSWHe sounds intelligent, but he's completely wrong.
"He has no frickin' idea," she said.

Neil Young, your public health advocate. Isn't one those guys on his third liver now?

Wondering: if qualified scientists can predict where human beings-induced climate change is going to lead us, do they all identify the same date in which the earth will be uninhabitable, given a model with the same factors?

ETA: Unfortunately I have reached my limit of free articles at the Guardian, so I can't reread today. And they're not getting one thin dime of my money, the commies!  Is there another way to access it?

Limited articles? The Guardian seems to have no paywall/limit for me and they say so, just asking for contributions now and then, but not scuttling my access.  On the other hand, I have given them some spare change from time to time.  Spending time with BoJo the PM is very refreshing as diversion from vexations closer to home.

Quote from: Juvenal on January 31, 2022, 10:40:13 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on January 30, 2022, 06:17:21 AM

Quote from: Hibush on January 29, 2022, 04:52:46 PM
The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/27/word-salad-of-nonsense-scientists-denounce-jordan-petersons-comments-on-climate-models) covered a Jordan Peterson interview this week:

Quote from: Prof. Perkins-Kirkpatrick UNSWHe sounds intelligent, but he's completely wrong.
"He has no frickin' idea," she said.

Neil Young, your public health advocate. Isn't one those guys on his third liver now?

Wondering: if qualified scientists can predict where human beings-induced climate change is going to lead us, do they all identify the same date in which the earth will be uninhabitable, given a model with the same factors?

ETA: Unfortunately I have reached my limit of free articles at the Guardian, so I can't reread today. And they're not getting one thin dime of my money, the commies!  Is there another way to access it?

Limited articles? The Guardian seems to have no paywall/limit for me and they say so, just asking for contributions now and then, but not scuttling my access.  On the other hand, I have given them some spare change from time to time.  Spending time with BoJo the PM is very refreshing as diversion from vexations closer to home.

Of course, I feel duly chastened for being inattentive to the messages on my computer screen. And thanks for the heads up. As soon as I see something in the Guardian that should do more good than harm to the reader who trusts them I'll consider sending a little something to them.

Quote from: mahagonny on January 30, 2022, 06:17:21 AM

Quote from: Hibush on January 29, 2022, 04:52:46 PM
The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/27/word-salad-of-nonsense-scientists-denounce-jordan-petersons-comments-on-climate-models) covered a Jordan Peterson interview this week:

Quote from: Prof. Perkins-Kirkpatrick UNSWHe sounds intelligent, but he's completely wrong.
"He has no frickin' idea," she said.

Neil Young, your public health advocate. Isn't one those guys on his third liver now?

Neil Young serves a good purpose in getting science coverage where the scientists are not the hook. The Guardian article interviewed a impressive number of scientist in the article, and well chosen ones at that. The others were no more charitable to the psychologist.

David Crosby has had one liver transplant. But then you would never (see below) anyone.

Quote from: mahagonny on January 22, 2022, 11:00:17 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 22, 2022, 10:22:53 AM
It's hard enough for him to write coherently at the best of times, so I imagine the letters of recommendation he wrote from his medically-induced coma in Russia (to "treat" his benzo addiction) did no one any favours.

Next time you're down remind me to kick you.

Peterson had a prescription drug problem which he spoke candidly about, yes with some self-dramatizing. But he didn't make recreational use of street drugs part of his public celebrity persona/product as too many rock stars of the 60's and 70's did, willfully influencing many younger people who idolized them into risky 'experimenting' through intense peer pressure and celebrity. Their mainstreaming of street drugs into American culture paved the way for the even more decadent hip hop 'purple drank' etc. genre. Though I'm sure there are some very talented, thoughtful 'alternative' (right term? I'm too old to know for sure) hip hop poets/performers by now. Some have turned out to be talented and can act well in movies. But on the whole it's a scene that has done a lot of harm, certainly the most vile of it has, as did the rock 'n' roll druggie culture. So Neil Young being held up as a public health advocate hits my funny bone.

QuoteNeil Young serves a good purpose in getting science coverage where the scientists are not the hook.

You're entitled to your opinion of course. I suspect he hates the Joe Rogan show for a handful of reasons, like most far left politically people will, and would love to shut him down. So Young is not really a free speech advocate either, to me. Although I think his taking his product off of Spotify is a public service (having listened to it).

Neil Young was not and is not a drug user. he publicly spoke against David Crosby, and will have nothing to do with him.

I'm sorry, but you treat all rock stars as a monolith, the same way neither you nor I want Rs and Ds to be treated.

Frank Zappa, of course, not only did not use street drugs or alcohol, but preached against them fervently with closely reasoned argument and fired sidemen if they came to work or rehearsal high. He was probably worried about getting busted and considered himself a target and a person who attracted resentment from 'the man' (it was mutual). Early in his career he was the target of a sting operation in which a local redneck asked him to make a pornographic movie with one or two girlfriends and sell it to them. I suspect too the reason Zappa was so outspoken was not only that he didn't like street drugs himself (he worked round the clock on his music, not something one could do high given the complexity) but to throw police off the trail. His music was difficult, he trained his sidemen for hours, and if they were busted, he would have been unable to meet his concert commitments.
(ETA: Late in his life, before he died of a heroin overdose, Mike Bloomfield was on the receiving end of an intervention. The story goes, Carlos Santana and several other friends showed up at Mike's apartment with a shaming exercise. Things like 'when I was a kid you taught me everything I knew about playing guitar; now you can't even hold one.' To which Bloomfield replied 'I'm into stoned leisure, man.')
Neil Young, from what I've read, gave up drugs late in life, commenting 'the straighter I am, the less I know myself' or some such. He has a sense of humor. He recommended eating peppercorns to remedy marijuana induced paranoia ('Doc, it hurts when I do this.' 'Then don't do that!') I still say it's Rogan's views on other things that are the reason. The vax thing is more of a ruse. It's so easy to push people's buttons.
Celebrities ceremoniously giving up drugs is another chance for them to make news, self dramatize, capitalize on the public's fetishizing. A friend of mine, right after we published our first book, were joking about the prospect of announcing we were going into rehab to boost sales. Or banned somewhere. Unfortunately it only works when you're already famous.
Feuds between band members are also a good way to get media attention. Wikipedia has millions of words of ruminating about what would normally be called trivia by rock music fans with spare time.
Ron 'Pigpen' McKernan of the Grateful Dead didn't care for street drugs at all, preferring alcohol.
No doubt you've heard the phrase 'sex drugs and rock and roll.' There's usually a reason for a cliché. Although some certainly resist peer pressure if they have the grounding/confidence. The trouble with young people is they often don't.

tl;dr     So no, I have no applause for Young's grandstanding/attempt to cancel.

An update on Peterson's feet.

From CHE (https://www.chronicle.com/article/jordan-petersons-next-move-taking-out-the-universities): "he's going to be chancellor of Ralston College, a fledgling institution in Savannah, Ga., that aims to be a "revival and reinvention of the traditional university."

Or so he said to Joe Rogan, so YMMV.

I'm not sure "fledgling" is the right metaphor. Ralston was founded, if you can call it that, twelve years ago by a buddy of Jordan's but has not admitted any students to date.

It doesn't speak to administrative efficiency to be adding a chancellor to the already high admin/student ratio.

Is this school still under construction? Peterson can draw can't he?

Quote from: Hibush on February 10, 2022, 02:45:15 PM

It doesn't speak to administrative efficiency to be adding a chancellor to the already high admin/student ratio.

Isn't the ratio undefined, as it would require dividing by zero?
In all seriousness though, how is this not at this point just a fraud perpetrated against whoever invested in this "college"?

LOL, the CHE author uses quotations around the phrase 'woke madness.' As if it is isn't already clear that there is such a thing and that it's a problem.

"Chancellor" Jordan Peterson votes with his feet once more.

Quote from: Mark Frauenfelder 17 May 2022Canadian pop psychologist Jordan Peterson's feelings were hurt so much by people making fun of him for body-shaming a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model that he announced he is backing away from Twitter.

"Authoritarian tolerance."

Lmao.