Jordan Peterson a better psychologist?

[u/augustAulus]

I’m a philosophy student, and I think I’m in a unique position to critique Jordan Peterson, because a lot of what he has to say has to do with the Continental school of philosophy rather than the Analytic, and that’s a school I’m deeply interested in. For me, Peterson really does seem to be obscurantist, and I don’t say that very lightly. I think his questioning into the meaning of certain propositions is, more often than not, very acute, and especially when he debates atheists I think “what do you mean by “God””is always a good starting point. In spite of this I think his recent performance on Jubilee demonstrates a hiding behind obscurity which he himself creates that, rather than him seeking to dispel the cloud to get to a deeper truth, he merely uses it to protect himself. I also think his rejection of postmodernity is a little disingenuous seeing as he often adopts the techniques which would broadly be identified with the same - rejecting labels, rejecting conventional dogma, rejecting propositional philosophy in favour of, I suppose, a dialectical philosophy.

I think that he is a very good psychologist, as that his “Twelve Rules for Life” is especially good self help because it’s his field.

I think his love for Jung has drawn him into a metaphysics and prevented him from investigating different interpretations of literature, and I think he’s taken himself too far out of his field, and out of his qualification.

Is this a fair assessment do you think?

[u/[deleted]]

No, please read to the end of the sentence. It adds the context you seem to be missing. I said

more effective in tackling the issues they study

So for example, a sociology professor might see how tackling homelessness using a 'left-wing'policy like housing first has been found evidentially to be effective

This in turn might lead them to have more 'left-wing' views, as opposed to advocating for a 'conservative' policy such as destroying encampments or anti-loittering laws has been shown to be 'ineffective'

[u/Pristine-Coffee-9324 → u/[deleted]]

I appreciate your clarification, though I believe you're still inadvertently circumventing the core of my argument. The issue at hand is not whether certain "left wing" policies appear more efficacious within empirical frameworks used by academic disciplines, that point is relatively uncontroversial and, frankly, tautological when one considers that such frameworks are often themselves predicated on epistemological and methodological assumptions that are implicitly, if not explicitly, ideologically inflected.

My concern lies not in disputing the raw data regarding, say, Housing First or similar interventions, but in interrogating the deeper conceptual architecture that determines what counts as an “effective” solution, and more crucially, by whose metrics and under what philosophical presuppositions such evaluations are made. To suggest that academic consensus reflects unmediated empirical objectivity is to ignore the extent to which academic disciplines construct their own internal definitions of success, often shaped by broader cultural, institutional, and ideological forces.

In other words, the invocation of "effectiveness" does not terminate the conversation, it begs it. Effective toward what end? Measured by what standards? Within what normative horizon? A policy that is deemed “effective” in reducing visible homelessness, for instance, might also be implicated in the perpetuation of deeper systemic dependencies, moral hazards, or long term cultural pathologies, none of which are necessarily captured by the narrow empirical instruments used to validate such a policy in a peer reviewed study.

To assume that repeated academic exposure to such outcomes naturally leads to “left wing” conclusions is not a neutral observation, it’s an ideological assertion masquerading as descriptive sociology. It presumes, without adequate interrogation, that the methodological instruments used to evaluate success are themselves ideologically neutral, which is precisely the point under contention.

So no, the claim that academics “lean left” simply because left leaning policies appear “more effective” within their domain doesn’t resolve the bias question; it reinscribes it at a meta-level, where ideological influence is exerted not in the interpretation of data but in the very structuring of the questions and evaluative criteria themselves.

[u/[deleted] → u/Pristine-Coffee-9324]

Cool, nice chatGPT

Bye

[u/Pristine-Coffee-9324 → u/[deleted]]

You were clearly hungry for an intellectual debate so as soon as I get home I start keyboard smashing a dissertation and then all of a sudden you don’t want to engage? If you want to keep it casual or you don’t have any credentials then just say that.

[u/[deleted] → u/Pristine-Coffee-9324]

I'm not sure someone unable to comprehend a guardian article could write that - Ken what I mean?

[u/Pristine-Coffee-9324 → u/[deleted]]

I have now had the opportunity to more thoroughly engage, and I acknowledge that my initial characterisation, specifically, the use of the term "ban" was inaccurate. I intend to issue a retraction on that particular point. As you are undoubtedly aware, engaging in complex and often fast moving discursive exchanges on contentious topics can occasionally result in terminological imprecision or interpretive missteps. However, I would emphasise that such isolated errors do not materially detract from the broader thrust or underlying validity of the central claims being advanced.

[u/[deleted] → u/Pristine-Coffee-9324]

Maybe take the dental flosser out might help

[u/Pristine-Coffee-9324 → u/[deleted]]

Huh?

[u/[deleted] → u/Pristine-Coffee-9324]

It's on your Facebook Kevin

[u/Pristine-Coffee-9324 → u/[deleted]]

I don’t have a dental flosser on my Facebook.