- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying? (Atlantic Article + Memes)
Posted on 1/27/18 at 9:04 am
Posted on 1/27/18 at 9:04 am
LINK
This is a really good article on the common strawman tactics of our modern rhetoric more than an article discussing how awesome Jordan Peterson is (and he's great). The author goes into intricate detail about the now famous BBC interview (that has become a really good meme).
I do love how the author can't criticize the left side of the MSM, but his point still stands (even though his examples are clearly biased).
exactly.
Straw man fallacy (Wiki)
pretty much every time in the interview, when Newman says "so you're saying" the remainder was exactly the straw man portion (hence the meme)
the article has a bunch of examples of this, or, as it is summarized here:
fricking low-level rhetoric that aims for catching people and getting "gotchas". now it's very popular on the left, but it's also very popular on the right (and has become a very beloved "argument" form of Trumpkins. the recent immigration debate was polluted with lots of "gotcha" arguments).
but, memes
This is a really good article on the common strawman tactics of our modern rhetoric more than an article discussing how awesome Jordan Peterson is (and he's great). The author goes into intricate detail about the now famous BBC interview (that has become a really good meme).
quote:
My first introduction to Jordan B. Peterson, a University of Toronto clinical psychologist, came by way of an interview that began trending on social media last week. Peterson was pressed by the British journalist Cathy Newman to explain several of his controversial views. But what struck me, far more than any position he took, was the method his interviewer employed. It was the most prominent, striking example I’ve seen yet of an unfortunate trend in modern communication.
First, a person says something. Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd.
Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and various Fox News hosts all feature and reward this rhetorical technique. And the Peterson interview has so many moments of this kind that each successive example calls attention to itself until the attentive viewer can’t help but wonder what drives the interviewer to keep inflating the nature of Peterson’s claims, instead of addressing what he actually said.
I do love how the author can't criticize the left side of the MSM, but his point still stands (even though his examples are clearly biased).
quote:
But in the interview, Newman relies on this technique to a remarkable extent, making it a useful illustration of a much broader pernicious trend. Peterson was not evasive or unwilling to be clear about his meaning. And Newman’s exaggerated restatements of his views mostly led viewers astray, not closer to the truth.
exactly.
Straw man fallacy (Wiki)
quote:
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
For example:
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[3]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated[2]
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version
pretty much every time in the interview, when Newman says "so you're saying" the remainder was exactly the straw man portion (hence the meme)
quote:
Peterson begins the interview by explaining why he tells young men to grow up and take responsibility for getting their lives together and becoming good partners. He notes he isn’t talking exclusively to men, and that he has lots of female fans.
“What’s in it for the women, though?” Newman asks.
“Well, what sort of partner do you want?” Peterson says. “Do you want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with who is going to help you?”
“So you’re saying,” Newman retorts, “that women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity.” But that’s not what he said. He posited a vested interest, not a duty.
quote:
The next section of the interview concerns the pay gap between men and women, and whether it is rooted in gender itself or other nondiscriminatory factors:
quote:
Newman: … that 9 percent pay gap, that’s a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists.
Peterson: Yes. But there’s multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but that’s not the only reason. If you’re a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. You say women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay. Well then we break its down by age; we break it down by occupation; we break it down by interest; we break it down by personality.
Newman: But you’re saying, basically, it doesn’t matter if women aren’t getting to the top, because that’s what is skewing that gender pay gap, isn’t it? You’re saying that’s just a fact of life, women aren’t necessarily going to get to the top.
the article has a bunch of examples of this, or, as it is summarized here:
quote:
The interviewer put all those words in his mouth.
fricking low-level rhetoric that aims for catching people and getting "gotchas". now it's very popular on the left, but it's also very popular on the right (and has become a very beloved "argument" form of Trumpkins. the recent immigration debate was polluted with lots of "gotcha" arguments).
but, memes
Posted on 1/27/18 at 9:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:if the universe is just, then yes
Posted on 1/27/18 at 9:17 am to SlowFlowPro
From what I watched of him last night, he's so intellectually superior to everyone I saw him matched against (with the exception of Sam Harris) that anyone dealing with him likely feels like they have to make the fight unfair in order to fool anyone that they can hold their own.
I suppose if you got into a fight with someone you knew you had absolutely zero chance against, you'd be more likely to kick in the groin, whereas if it was perceived to be an even match up, you may stand toe to toe and trade punches. Since these people know they're no matchup for this man, they're forced to resort to antics like this.
It just so happens that the big fight he's having in Canada also happens to be against a group of people with zero grounding in reality who are so insane they even go so far as to deny any biological basis for gender. The only world in which that is allowed to happen is a world in which the social sciences have been elevated to the status of empirical proof. I used to cringe when people would compare things like global warming to religion, but I absolutely get it now. They're postmodernist, radically leftist views have risen to the level of dogma and no alternative views are welcome or tolerated.
I suppose if you got into a fight with someone you knew you had absolutely zero chance against, you'd be more likely to kick in the groin, whereas if it was perceived to be an even match up, you may stand toe to toe and trade punches. Since these people know they're no matchup for this man, they're forced to resort to antics like this.
It just so happens that the big fight he's having in Canada also happens to be against a group of people with zero grounding in reality who are so insane they even go so far as to deny any biological basis for gender. The only world in which that is allowed to happen is a world in which the social sciences have been elevated to the status of empirical proof. I used to cringe when people would compare things like global warming to religion, but I absolutely get it now. They're postmodernist, radically leftist views have risen to the level of dogma and no alternative views are welcome or tolerated.
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 9:19 am
Posted on 1/27/18 at 9:24 am to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
what's hilarious is that the online response is being way over blown by the leftists and they're turning it into misogyny and threats
that's their response to losing...silencing them
hell some outlets had "RIP cathy newman" listed as a threat to her life
that's their response to losing...silencing them
hell some outlets had "RIP cathy newman" listed as a threat to her life
Posted on 1/27/18 at 9:25 am to RedStickBR
quote:
the big fight he's having in Canada also happens to be against a group of people with zero grounding in reality
this is like watching the story of Socrates in modern day fashion
Posted on 1/27/18 at 9:26 am to SlowFlowPro
Those memes remind me of the complete non sequiturs (aka whipsaws) I hear in (very fake) news reporting all the time.
The reporter will make a statement either of supposed fact or a characterization/summary of a quote. Then the actual clip of the quote plays, and it is completely different. Doesn't even come close to supporting the reporter's statement.
But they move on so quickly that many (most) don't have time to even process it.
The reporter will make a statement either of supposed fact or a characterization/summary of a quote. Then the actual clip of the quote plays, and it is completely different. Doesn't even come close to supporting the reporter's statement.
But they move on so quickly that many (most) don't have time to even process it.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 9:27 am to RedStickBR
So you're saying version
Scott Adams had an interesting take on the interview.
What happens when someone enters a discussion possessing already accepted/not up for discussion beliefs, in this case the gender pay gap is due to sexism, only to hear irrefutable evidence that suggests your belief could be wrong?
You hallucinate
Her brain simply couldn't process what Jordan was actually saying, so it had to distort or contrive something completely different.
Scott Adams had an interesting take on the interview.
What happens when someone enters a discussion possessing already accepted/not up for discussion beliefs, in this case the gender pay gap is due to sexism, only to hear irrefutable evidence that suggests your belief could be wrong?
You hallucinate
Her brain simply couldn't process what Jordan was actually saying, so it had to distort or contrive something completely different.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 9:27 am to TrueTiger
Socrates may have been saved if enough people stood up and supported him. We have to do the same with intellectual leaders like Peterson. We must support this man.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 9:28 am to SlowFlowPro
A great boom in that interview was a little over 4 mins in. She flipped out and asked him how he could make certain statements about how women do certain things and his response was - I'm a clinical psychologist
She thought her armchair SJW analysis was on par with a guy that does this stuff for a living.
She thought her armchair SJW analysis was on par with a guy that does this stuff for a living.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 9:32 am to geauxtigahs87
quote:
Her brain simply couldn't process what Jordan was actually saying, so it had to distort or contrive something completely different.
The fact that she says she's a journalist yet had to stop the interview to process a simple free speech comment should tell us all we need to know
Posted on 1/27/18 at 9:33 am to SlowFlowPro
Wouldn’t this also be a great example of cognitive dissonance?
Posted on 1/27/18 at 9:40 am to SlowFlowPro
There's really no need to go deep with an explanation of why when it truly comes down to hate trumps love.
This personality type hates that they are "perceived" as anything closely related to being in error when in fact they are the error.
This personality type hates that they are "perceived" as anything closely related to being in error when in fact they are the error.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 9:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that's their response to losing...silencing them
There are only two sure things in life, taxes, and the left playing the victim card after they lose an argument.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 9:58 am to RedStickBR
quote:
I suppose if you got into a fight with someone you knew you had absolutely zero chance against, you'd be more likely to kick in the groin, whereas if it was perceived to be an even match up, you may stand toe to toe and trade punches. Since these people know they're no matchup for this man, they're forced to resort to antics like this.
i don't think they realize it
the "bad rhetoric" has turned lots of brains into soup, especially in this "bite size" culture developed by social media
the culture of the internet rewards quick wit and this has created the "Drive by gotcha" argument, where inferior thinkers have tricked their brains into thinking they are making great insights by using a "gotcha"
Cathy Newman believes that she won. she does not feel overmatched. that's why the response is so shocking to her
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:00 am to upgrayedd
quote:
She flipped out and asked him how he could make certain statements about how women do certain things and his response was - I'm a clinical psychologist
i haven't seen the whole interview but i saw that clip and laughed hard at that exchange
he did a follow up where he gets into how he was analyzing her psychological-personality issues as they were doing the interview
quote:
She thought her armchair SJW analysis was on par with a guy that does this stuff for a living.
what makes him strong in this area is his academic work as well as his professional work as a clinical psychologist
he has a large well to draw from when discussing these issues from the private and public setting
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:01 am to Damone
quote:
Wouldn’t this also be a great example of cognitive dissonance?
cognitive dissonance is the general
strawman is a specific example of cognitive dissonance in action
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:10 am to geauxtigahs87
This is what extremists do. They've already created a mental caricature of anyone not stricken with hive mind, so regardless of what's said, their ears only hear a filtered sjw translation that confirms their own stereotypes. She didn't receive thoughtfully, a single syllable of what he said but rather conducted the "interview" with herself by replaying everything he said through the sjw lens and debating the proverbial strawman.
Closed minded and bigoted. They are everything they claim to fight against.
Closed minded and bigoted. They are everything they claim to fight against.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:19 am to SlowFlowPro
The Atlantic consistently produces fantastic articles.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:26 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
They've already created a mental caricature of anyone not stricken with hive mind, so regardless of what's said, their ears only hear a filtered sjw translation that confirms their own stereotypes. She didn't receive thoughtfully, a single syllable of what he said but rather conducted the "interview" with herself by replaying everything he said through the sjw lens and debating the proverbial strawman.
the insidious part of their rhetoric "belief system" is that they have begun to base almost everything on subjective experience. that removes the reality part of reality from the equation, allowing them to "logically" justify the behavior you commented about
Posted on 1/27/18 at 10:36 am to SlowFlowPro
Youtube
Really good dialogue last night between Jordan Peterson, William Lane Craig, and Rebecca Goldstein (Steven Pinker's wife) on the meaning of life.
Goldstein pretty much ruined any interaction between WLC and Peterson, which was a shame. She was really unnecessary, but I guess they needed a token representative of metaphysical naturalism.
Really good dialogue last night between Jordan Peterson, William Lane Craig, and Rebecca Goldstein (Steven Pinker's wife) on the meaning of life.
Goldstein pretty much ruined any interaction between WLC and Peterson, which was a shame. She was really unnecessary, but I guess they needed a token representative of metaphysical naturalism.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News