I'm still on the fence about whether the net result of Jordanson is healthy for humanity. Even if his intention is to pull people away from nihilism & into Christianity, it may not work out as intended. Time will tell.
(6 votes)
The Case Against Peter Jordanson
Comments
(Short Spike)
Wow, this guy doesn't actually get it.
I had to stop following Dusty a while back. Too many of these poorly formulated arguments.
(Old Spike)
Does he not get the macro aspect or is it something specific?
(Old Spike)
Back in my Atheism 1.0 days I use to think Cult of Dusty was pretty cool. Then he started cucking and spitting leftist horse shit.
I will give the guy credit for not being so bitch-made that when it comes to calling out religions he makes an exception for Islam.
(Old Spike)
His intention is to pull people away from the "spectre" of nihilism into something new - not whatever of the myriad ideas of "Christianity" a person might be carrying around in their mind. This is lost on most people - Peterson speaks mainly to "lost Christians": many fundamentalists call them "false Christians" because they do not subscribe to some specific dogma or doctrine. These are people who carry the archetypes of the west internally but see no viable means of expressing and discussing them externally. The percentage of people who are genuinely nihilist and actually act that internal belief out externally is small, although I believe it is quickly growing.
(Old Spike)
Peterson speaks mainly to "lost Christians"
what do you base that on?
(Old Spike)
His words - he proposes that Christian archetypes are embedded in western ethical and political systems whether we are aware of it or not. That's completely separate from whether someone says "I'm a Christian" and what it means inside their head when they say it. The denial of the value of the archetypes upon which our western memetic evolution stands is, in his opinion, a misalignment that needs to be addressed. These ideas need to be extracted, clearly identified, and then reintegrated into a forward-looking, low-resolution narrative around which we can base our continued development. Rather than saying "God has not destroyed us yet" Peterson couches his arguments within the idea of the Darwinian framework - the environmental pressures and our responses, and how they drive us forward or backwards in terms of what's best for you, your family, your society today, tomorrow, and next week, month, and year. The great unknown with its promise of danger and opportunity can either destroy us or we can adapt to it in a way that will allow us to survive and continue adapting.
(Old Spike)
It's all so complicated-sounding. You sure it's not bullshit?
You say it's to develop a forward-looking narrative...but he's inderpinning it with his Christian belief system. Seems like a contradiction.
It seems delusional to me, the idea that a psychologist who also studied politics is capable of doing anything that will help us survive.
(Old Spike)
The moment you see that he isn't "underpinning it with his Christian belief system" - that he's simply arguing for people to accept the truth of that which moves them internally, you will see that it isn't complicated at all. In the West those archetypes tend to be Christian. Aligning how you see yourself internally with how you express yourself externally is a basic aspect of psychological health. Peterson draws on and compares against religious archetypes of all types across time. You could just as easily say that he's underpinning his arguments with his belief in Moloch, and the misunderstanding would be the same.
(Old Spike)
The structure of a lot of his schtick is framed as good vs evil. The chaos or the nihilism or whatever it is the evil. It's a Christian outlook to paint things that way.
I've heard him describe things several times as an internal struggle between good and evil. What could be more Abrahamic than that?
(Old Spike)
Incorrect - Peterson does not identify chaos as evil. If you haven't read his book I recommend it - I'm going to go through it again via audiobook. Chaos is an integral part of the order/chaos balance you must have internally to operate in an optimum fashion within the Darwinian framework. Peterson walks through many different concepts of order/chaos across several traditions. What led you to believe Peterson equates chaos with evil?
(Old Spike)
Well nihilism then. You know what I mean. He's often describing hell which people have to avoid. He does psychological talks with a religious bent. It's wierd.
(Old Spike)
He's talking about an imbalance, where everything suddenly becomes chaotic - like when you find out your spouse cheated or you get fired, etc. The only point he makes about nihilism is that if all you are is genuinely nihilistic it's very difficult to have positive emotions - too much chaos leads to a lack of motivation and accountability (I'm just a tortured leaf blowing in the wind to my sad doom and so on). He also makes the point that when people have faith in something that's proven false to them, they can lose faith in everything and fall into a nihilistic depression. All of these observations appear to be both clinical and correct. There is an effort to portray him as a polarizing individual with a binary worldview when all he talks about is balance. Jordan contributes to this by going on about how the left are destroying Universities too much and too often - he's personalized that issue and it makes it easier to slot him into a simplistic political straw man.
I think Peterson is going to hit a wall eventually, and fall hard. I hope he isn't physically harmed, but he'll eventually do something or say something that is genuinely scandalous and there will be a mad pounce to rip him down to the ground. I think it's inevitable, but would be happy to be wrong.
(Old Spike)
I think he's going to get quite a push back. It's already started. He spreads himself way too thin & talks on subjects he's got very little expertise in but with the same academic kind of speech patterns. Even if he doesn't make a major blunder that mainstream can pounce on, the horseshit is just going to mount & his words will be used against him like the video here.
His answer to the JQ showed me that he has no problem with dishonesty. I'd be careful taking everything he says is gospel if I were you.
(Old Spike)
Peterson reflects my beliefs more than he informs them, actually. I've watched this video - it is horseshit, with much of the source material deliberately taken out of context. It's also replete with "So you're saying..." without Peterson there to respond, and even within that obviously disingenuous context the narrator STILL manages to sound like a douchebag. Anyone who follows up those talks and watches them without this asshat's commentary will see that, and it can only benefit Peterson. Videos like this make him stronger and increase his support base, because we've now become used to tracking down the sources for these cut jobs and seeing the dishonesty on display. It's almost like a sport now.
(Old Spike)
What's your answer to his misrepresentation of C16 & the JQ?
He said that C16 compells speech by forcing people to use specific pronouns. His detractors claim it does no such thing, it simply prevents discrimination & has been in effect in his state for 5 years already.
That seems to be a common criticism.
In his JQ article he claims that finance and media is owned & run by Jews because Ashkenazi Jews have high IQs. The math behind his argument is ridiculous. As a professor of a science there's really no excuse to distort the facts as he did IMO. He would have been better served simply avoiding the question like every other public figure does. If youwant to see "dishonesty on display" you need look no futher than this post.
I've done the calculations & it just doesn't add up.
(Old Spike)
Ah, the Jews. I see. Let's put that aside danmanjones because you've mischaracterized what Peterson said - here's another clip of Peterson discussing the issue:
Regarding Bill C-16? He's not objecting to descrimination protection for trans people, which has been on the books for 5 years. You are making his point - the argument that he's misrepresenting the Bill is the same as that made by an envious professor in the Toronto Star. Peterson was objecting to "Forced speech", which was the change introduced by Bill C-16. There are already "social awareness" campaign videos featuring a person standing there saying "I resolve to refer to the people I meet as they or them until they inform me of their preferred pronoun". The people who judge whether offenses have been committed are the SAME people that interrogated Lindsay Shepherd, told her she had broken the law by showing a video where the issue was simply being discussed, and even told her she was responsible for violence against trans people. The same kind of talk would occur with a social justice tribunal - if you refused the fine or the "re-education" you could be held in contempt of court which, if you continued to resist, would land you in prison. The people who attack Peterson do what they always do - build a strawman. "Trans protections have been on the books for 5 years this isn't new!!" they say. Peterson isn't objecting to protections for trans people - if he had a problem with that he would have objected five years ago.
(Old Spike)
I'm not mischaracterizing what he's saying, I read the article, looked at his mathematical formula and found it to be extremely flawed. There are more gentile geniuses than there are Jews in the US. He argues that IQ is the most accurate measure of merit & that Jews run media & finance because they're the most qualified. It's bunk. Did you read that article?
So for the C-16 thing, most people have it wrong - most think that he was instrumental in blocking the law with his parliament session & his own activism against it. When the whole time he was campaigning against something else he thought was going to happen?
(Old Spike)
(Old Spike)
Just FYI I don't watch the videos you post. I'm watching some other stuff & it's kinda irrelevant 2bh. We're discussing the JQ article he wrote and whether or not his C-16 activism was deceptive.
Let's make it simple: His math is severely broken. He claims that 40.8% of American geniuses (145+ IQ) are Jewish. This is not correct. It's closer to 4%.
You can't defend this.
(Old Spike)
Here's just one quote from the article you misrepresented: "Consider that IQ is the most powerful single determinant of long-term socioeconomic success and influence." There's nothing about merit here.
Another quote - the one you're referring to I believe - where you are misrepresenting his claims:
The critique: Second, if Jews are high IQ, and that means they are more likely to be in positions of power, that would explain their prevalence. Yet, there are VASTLY more white gentiles that have equal or higher IQs than your average Jews. We can do simple math to prove this. If there are 6 million Jews in the United States with an average IQ of 115 (so 3 million are 115+) and there are 200+ million white gentiles with an average IQ of 105 IQ (so roughly 30% are 115+ IQ). So 200 million x .30 gives us 60,000,000 whites with an IQ of 115+. So, we would think, if all things being equal, then that whites would proportionally represented in positions of power commensurate with their IQ and numbers. Jews should, according to the idea that IQ leads to representation in positions of power, should be 5% or so of millionaires (3 million Jews / 60 million gentiles at 115+). But this is not the case. Jews make up a disproportionate number of millionaires and billionaires (40% according to Forbes) according to the IQ theory Jordan B. Peterson is utilizing.
Peterson's response:
Your cutoff for high IQ is far too low. Try 145 (the figure I cite for serious intellectual advantage) and see how that works. That’s three standard deviations above the general population of mean of 100, not the 115 (one standard deviation) you used. One standard deviation above the average is helpful — it puts you in college — but it’s nothing compared to three standard deviations (in part because of the operation of the Pareto principle).
Three standard deviations advantage for the general population puts an individual at 99.9%. That’s .001 of the population, so .001 X 200,000,000 (using your figures) = 200,000 “white gentiles” with an IQ of 145 or more.
Two standard deviations advantage for the Jewish population (with an estimated mean IQ of 115) means an IQ above 97.7% of the Jewish population. That’s .023 of the population, so .023 X 6.000,000 = 138,000
138,000/(200,000+138,000) = 138,000/338,000 = 40.8% of the 145+ IQ population is Jewish. And you said “40% of millionaires and billionaires are Jewish.”
Isn’t it something how those figures dovetail?
Danman - whenever the subject is Jews I'm afraid your objectivity flies out the window. The fact that you won't simply watch and listen to him describe his views without filter or misrepresentation is telling.
(Old Spike)
Dude, you don't need to comment on my objectivity. I used "merit" as a word to paraphrase the "determinant" language he used.
It's right there in black & white:
40.8% of the 145+ IQ population is Jewish
This is a false claim, one that cannot be covered up by fuzzy use of language.
(Old Spike)
LOL WTF is that jpg? I navigated all over the source website and there was no reference for the data, so that I could determine context, the IQ cutoff rate, etc. This JPG comes from this article, which appears on a website that offers NO REFERENCES SUPPORTING EVIDENCE for its claims. Show me the scholarly paper from which these stats are derived, so I can determine the context of the stats, so I can determine if Jordan Peterson has made an "error in math" or if you're just grabbing what you can from www.I'mright.com because you have issues with Jews.
Ah, you've removed that JPG. Why? Now where are you getting your 4% of 145+ IQ are Jews? Are you CERTAIN you have the IQ cutoff rate factored? Have you examined the methodology of the scholarly paper from which the 4% figure is derived, the context of the statistical analysis, etc. - can you provide a VALID link to it?
(Old Spike)
The 4% figure comes from Voxday who debunks Jordanson's claims here
Besides the sketchy "115 IQ" figure, he's taken Ashkenazim as a representation of all Jews when they only make up 50% of the Jews in the US.
(Old Spike)
That entire article is dedicated to debunking the numerous studies showing the identified subset of Jews have disproportionate IQ. The author cherry-picks one study regarding average intelligence of white boys and girls and applies that as the critique of the entire body of work showing otherwise. This author is claiming that not just Peterson, but Pinker, Weinstein (renowned mathematician) and all the others are...what? Mistaken? Or is there something more dubious afoot here danman?
Lay it out for us - let's accept that this subset of Jews is not more intelligent on average. A perception exists amongst academia that the reverse is true. Forbes reports that 40% of billionaires are Jewish. So what's going on here, if it's not higher average intelligence? Explain to us what this philosopher and science fiction writer who is apparently despised by large portions of the science fiction community is revealing to us...
Vox Day (born 21 August 1968) is an American publisher, science fiction writer, philosopher, musician and video game designer. He is a former nationally syndicated columnist with Chronicle Features and Universal Press Syndicate. He is known as the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil by his supporters, who describe themselves as Vile Faceless Minions and the Dread Ilk.
(Old Spike)
Here's a less biased example of the correlation (it still references sketchy studies but takes an average) .... It has Ashkenazim at 110 & admits that studies range from 104 to 115. It also states that Shephardic Jews measure the same as European Americans.
So Jordan has taken the 1% Ahkenazim, added 5+ IQ points & doubled their population in order to reach his 40.8% figure. It's beyond sloppy.
(Old Spike)
Are you quibbling over 5 IQ points - the studies have a range, and the upper range is being cited. Your point? This article also backs Peterson's statement - "As you can see below, IQ rates correlate fairly well with income."
So you're quibbling over the fact that the average of 115 wasn't used. Peterson is using a cutoff of 145 (he's adding 5 points there as well, since the cutoff for genius has traditionally been 140). Can you explain how you keep arriving at the idea that Peterson is "doubling the population". If Peterson, who's not a mathematician, has made an error in math then I'll ask you again:
What is the reason for why there is a disproportiate representation of billionaires among jews? If it's not what the very article you just linked says it is, what's the actual reason?
(Old Spike)
To say 5 points for average IQ means nothing is ridiculous. The difference is only about 7 points. He's almost doubled the difference.
50% of US Jews are Ashkenazim (the ones who do better on IQ tests). US is 2% Jewish. So he's taken the 1% Ashk. & doubled it to represent all Jooz. The other 1% have normal IQs.
You don't get to ask me anything unless you admit he's misrepresented the facts.
(Old Spike)
I don't think the gap could be that large either considering Israel has an averaage IQ of 95.
Israel is 20% Arab who have an IQ around 90, based on the other Arab countries nearby.
37% Sepharrdic with IQ around 100, based on them being same as European as mentioned above....
Which means the Ashkenazim (47%) would only have about 104 IQ. Not 110.
Maybe US got the smarter ones?
Or maybe the racial studies done in the USA are sketchy.
(Old Spike)
Or maybe it's a vast Jewish conspiracy? Were you aware that the article you reference is pulling stats from multiple sources and amalgamating them? Some stats are pulled from Murray's book, while others are pulled from different studies. Both the book and first linked study specify the same value - 113. Yet the article posts a value of 110. In the ACTUAL HYPERLINK where that 110 value is posted you arrive at a University of Utah study - I've just read through it quickly. It's like a detailed destruction of your claims and arguments here - here's an excerpt:
Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data. They score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ 112-115. This has been seen in many studies (Backman, 1972; Levinson, 1959; Romanoff, 1976), although a recent review concludes that the advantage is slightly less, only half a standard deviation Lynn (2004). This fact has social significance because IQ (as measured by IQ tests) is the best predictor we have of success in academic subjects and most jobs. Ashkenazi Jews are just as successful as their tested IQ would predict, and they are hugely overrepresented in occupations and fields with the highest cognitive demands. During the 20th century, they made up about 3% of the US population but won 27% of the US Nobel science prizes and 25% of the ACM Turing awards. They account for more than half of world chess champions.
(Old Spike)
Amazing. Even with pure math proving that Peter Jordanson is not inffallible you simply refuse to accept it's even possible.
Skeptoid, I've shown very simply that the 40.8% figure that Jordan came up with is off by at least 20.4% due to his flawed methodology - and that's if his 115 IQ figure is used.
Will you continue to hold your fingers in your ears and shout I'M NOT LISTENING or will you accept the obvious truth?
Your choice.
(Old Spike)
I guess from silence that the fingers in the ears option was chosen.
(Short Spike)
Fuck the cult.
Postulating as an imbecile can still wear a logical mask. That's the Peterson syndrome and why his cult can suck a dick (his dick actually).
The guy presents some very rational notions at times and then turns a corner that can really make an eye roll so hard.
His cult is so die hard it makes me nauseus. I think that common social sense will eventually supercede this guys verbal enchantments. He seems like he's on a psychological mission to manifest a biblical life as a literal life. It can't be done. Jesus can be an example but not an ultimate and annexing archetype or model for living in THIS era It's a fucking flawed compass!!! It's archaic. It's a stunted idea on how morality evolves. Morality evolves within the human condition that is self propelled by always learning, ALWAYS innovative. Taking an old idea long invalided in the present and re-designing it as some neo-intellectual expression, IS PURE SOPHISTRY. To insist that traditional beliefs and ethical social mangement fundementals, need to be superimposed on how we live today is base idiocy. Actually anti-philisophical to be honest. After giving him a chance, he seems like a well spoken semi- cogent and eloquent CHRISTIAN conservative, who makes regular conservatives think themselves smarter by listening to or quoting him.
Dont get me wrong. I love being a guy dad bread winner fuck machine. But this douche does not represent my "mantality" Take that millenial neo-fems!! You count too, as the runner up for the contemporary douche awards.
Fuck this age.
Back to relevance: This video personifies his shiney bullshit very well.
Good upload and can we please stop spamming the site with his pasty face?
Thank.you
(Old Spike)
I think Peterson's life is in considerable danger. You should read his book so you can better understand the cult, so you can fight against it more effectively of course.
Btw, I'm looking forward to your next video post.
(Short Spike)
"I think Peterson's life is in considerable danger."
A) That's some crazy martyr talk right there.
B) Who's fighting?
I said fuck the cult not fight the cult.
C) I'll goddamn post when I want. This ain't no job. It's a respite or distraction from my real one.
(Old Spike)
When people start rolling out labels like "cult" for something that clearly isn't a cult, it's an indication of what may be yet to come. Next we'll hear about "those cockroaches" in the Peterson cult. The word "cult" is popular amongst a certain demographic here, I've noticed. I think it's realistic to assume he's in some danger - he tells stories of guys jumping out of cars in the street to tell him how much his book has helped, and that makes me cringe. I hope he has at least some kind of security.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/poll-59-fear-violence-from-trump-haters-31-predict-civil-war(Old Spike)
Didn't watch the whole video but televangelist had me cracking up.
Peterson tries to create a depth to religion where none is (necessary), the religious lobsters adore him for it because they ran out of arguments long ago. To them it either does not matter what other gobshoit he produces or they actually agree.
His other ideas (for example about free speech) are not new at all.
The obsession by his fanboys (and there is a huuuuuge one on here) is quite comical if you ask me. They would buy his farts if they were for sale and post videos of themselves consuming them for enlightenment.
(Old Spike)
(Old Spike)
Here's what I think of Jordan GOD-DAMN Peterson!
via GIPHY
(Old Spike)
This is fucking HILLARIOUS, self confessed lobster biastoid on a fucking roll for his idol, like an islamist "protecting mohammed".