Professor Votes With His Feet

[mahagonny]

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

[Parasaurolophus]

Good riddance to shitty "scholarship".

[dismalist]

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

[mahagonny]

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.

Good riddance to shitty "scholarship".

May I quote you?

[Parasaurolophus]

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:

women have a subconscious wish for brutal male domination

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

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

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

What a hero!

[mahagonny]

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.

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

women have a subconscious wish for brutal male domination

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

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

if 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.

[marshwiggle]

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:

women have a subconscious wish for brutal male domination

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

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

if 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:

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

[jimbogumbo]

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:

women have a subconscious wish for brutal male domination

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

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

if 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:

if 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.

[dismalist]

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. :-)

[smallcleanrat]

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.

[dismalist]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[smallcleanrat]

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").

[Parasaurolophus]

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.