Alternatives to Jordan Peterson

Anything that does not fit into the above categories, but is related to psychology, including discussion of public and media perceptions of psychology, satire related to psychology, etc.
User avatar
Campion
Posts: 1186
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:28 pm

Re: Alternatives to Jordan Peterson

Post by Campion » Wed Jul 15, 2020 1:34 pm

miriam wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 3:47 pm
I should also add that plenty of (to my eye) overtly fascist figureheads have been lifted too, from Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, Steve Bannon, Milo Yiannopoulos and Nigel Farage to Donald Trump himself. However, like Christina Hoff Summers, Peterson's academic credentials and ability to skirt the extremes that have become the demise of many others...
I'm sorry M, are you suggesting here that Jordan Peterson and Christina Hoff Sommers are somehow skirting fascism? If so, given that the politics of fascism are fairly comprehensively known and well-defined, could you please explain how, and provide evidential examples of this behaviour on their part?

I'm not going to laud the virtues of either, nor condemn their vices, that's not my place here, but accusing them of skirting fascism - if indeed that is what you are doing - is a strange argument from a sociological position and one I'd like to hear you make if you wouldn't mind.



Campion.
'Think how many blameless lives are brightened by the blazing indiscretions of other people.' - Saki.

User avatar
miriam
Site Admin
Posts: 7941
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: Bucks
Contact:

Re: Alternatives to Jordan Peterson

Post by miriam » Thu Jul 16, 2020 1:32 am

Campion wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 1:34 pm
could you please explain how, and provide evidential examples of this behaviour on their part?
No. My energy and this psychology forum are not going to be diverted into a debate about where the boundary between the alt-right and fascism lies.

What I said was what I meant. Lots of neo-fascists have been lifted by the alt right. JBP and Sommers both cultivate the same audiences of straight white men threatened by progress towards greater rights and protections for women and minorities, and rail against the same enemies, but have avoided the pitfalls that have beset other figureheads in the same movement, who have expressed more overt/extreme views.

Whatever your politics or views of individuals that have been mentioned, my position is pretty clear: I don't own/fund this forum for it to be a platform for prejudice, to promote the work of those who are actively working to harm the rights of women/minorities, or to link to alt-right publications.
Miriam

See my blog at http://clinpsyeye.wordpress.com

User avatar
Campion
Posts: 1186
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:28 pm

Re: Alternatives to Jordan Peterson

Post by Campion » Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:19 pm

Hmmm...

If I concede that the question I asked was improperly framed, and that you may fairly have felt I was attacking you out of nowhere, or defending Jordan Peterson apropos of nothing then I can certainly understand why you have reacted this way. As I asked the question in good faith, I will presume your response is likewise and apologise if I have made you feel you need to defend yourself in a place where you have responsibility for the political and intellectual safety of that space.

The general insistence in modern politics, I would argue, is that 'anyone to the right of me is morally evil and anyone to the left of me is a dangerous idiot'. It's something I've seen building up across the political spectrum for quite some time, and I'll admit that may well be because I'm looking for it (a known flaw of sociologists in general). However, if I'm right in this assumption, then this may explain why we frequently rage against imagined collectives from a position of political narcissism, and why the worst antagonists for both conservatism and progressivism have so strongly moved towards attacking people on the basis of their immutable traits.

I'm as concerned as you are with how we are moving forward socially at this time; there are some disturbing changes happening in the socio-cultural sphere right now. The argument that everyone I don't like can be put into the same basket marked deplorables shouldn't however be a position we are trying to enact though. It's a failed thesis; and even Hillary Clinton accepts that particular phrase helped lead us towards a Trump presidency in the United States in 2016 (and our continued enactment of such naïve politics in the socio-cultural sphere, I would argue, now threatens us with a repeat of that in November of this year).

I see a lot of water between people like JP or CHS and Milo or Yaxley-Lennon, if you don't then that's fine. I'm not here to argue that you are wrong, only to ask how you came to that conclusion and ask if you think the idea that whilst they don't fit in to the same basket of deplorables, but they lead other people unknowingly to it's edge is a useful insistence in the current political environment, particularly if it is a claim made without evidence (regardless of what the reason for so doing is).

As I said, I'm not looking to attack or defend anyone and if the way I've framed the question has made further conversation impossible for you, then I apologise for so doing.




Campion.
'Think how many blameless lives are brightened by the blazing indiscretions of other people.' - Saki.

User avatar
miriam
Site Admin
Posts: 7941
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: Bucks
Contact:

Re: Alternatives to Jordan Peterson

Post by miriam » Fri Jul 17, 2020 12:58 am

I'm saturated with straight white men asking me so politely and rationally to explain that sexism and racism exists, or that so and so is really saying anything unreasonable. Maybe I reached that saturation point in the 3.5 years you've been away. Or maybe you've missed the many conversations about this repugnant man in the interim. But this is a psychology forum, not a politics forum, and I/we don't owe you explanations that satisfy your intellectual curiosity. I said I didn't want to take my time or my forum to argue politics or semantics with you. I don't enjoy it, or think it will change either of our perspectives. It seems very disrespectful to insist on an answer to your question, nonetheless.

If you are interested in JBP and/or the alt right, feel free to read up about it. Some of the following might give interesting contextual information:

About JBP: 1, 2, 3
About Gamergate: 4 (if you wonder how this relates to JBP, check his posting history, eg this and note the fact that his involvement in gamergate and use of that audience when he "hit a hornet's nest" by attacking political correctness and gender pronouns launched him into public view beyond his dwindling influence in the psychology of personality, see search frequency chart in top link for timing. For wider context on gamergate read 4a, 4b)
About how this relates to alt-right: 5
About how this relates to facism: 6
And Sommers is an anti-feminist who also rode the gamergate wave. They call her "based mom". Enough said.

Seeking out those links has wasted another evening of my time, down a very unpleasant rabbit hole of the internet. I'm not going to waste another.
Miriam

See my blog at http://clinpsyeye.wordpress.com

User avatar
Campion
Posts: 1186
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:28 pm

Re: Alternatives to Jordan Peterson

Post by Campion » Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:14 pm

miriam wrote:
Fri Jul 17, 2020 12:58 am
I'm saturated with straight white men asking me so politely and rationally to explain that sexism and racism exists, or that so and so is really saying anything unreasonable. Maybe I reached that saturation point in the 3.5 years you've been away. Or maybe you've missed the many conversations about this repugnant man in the interim. But this is a psychology forum, not a politics forum, and I/we don't owe you explanations that satisfy your intellectual curiosity. I said I didn't want to take my time or my forum to argue politics or semantics with you. I don't enjoy it, or think it will change either of our perspectives. It seems very disrespectful to insist on an answer to your question, nonetheless.

I didn't think I was insisting on anything, but you're right, at least insofar as that I've been gone from the forum for 3 and a half years and that you really don't owe me anything. I do appreciate you providing those links however, that made for interesting reading. Thank you for that.



Campion.
'Think how many blameless lives are brightened by the blazing indiscretions of other people.' - Saki.

User avatar
miriam
Site Admin
Posts: 7941
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: Bucks
Contact:

Re: Alternatives to Jordan Peterson

Post by miriam » Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:13 pm

Campion wrote:
Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:14 pm
I didn't think I was insisting on anything, but you're right, at least insofar as that I've been gone from the forum for 3 and a half years and that you really don't owe me anything. I do appreciate you providing those links however, that made for interesting reading. Thank you for that.

Campion.
I'm not saying you are unwelcome here, just that I don't have the capacity or inclination for this line of conversation at the present time. You will know from the past that, like Spatch, I enjoy the theoretical and semantic debates you favour most of the time, but at the moment issues around diversity/discrimination/populism/politics of hate are too raw and painful for too many people to fall into the category of theoretical/semantic as they tie into personal lived experiences and secondary trauma - something that most white men might be quite oblivious to. I also recognise that my resources (and I'm sure those of many other people) are worn thin by coping with the constant fear and uncertainty of coronavirus, and the state of politics in the UK and wider world, and I have less emotional capacity to spare for off-topic discussion.
Miriam

See my blog at http://clinpsyeye.wordpress.com

KalEl
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:19 am

Re: Alternatives to Jordan Peterson

Post by KalEl » Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:01 am

hawke wrote:
Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:55 pm
Testosterone causes violence. We know this because men are more violent, and as testosterone goes up in the teenage years so does violence. This means boys need their fathers in a stable nuclear family unit to be role models.
(I have paraphrased, as I do not know the exact clip that was being played)

Rather than the content itself, what stood out to me was the certainty with which he said all of these things, without offering convincing evidence or theoretical logic. He didn't make clear what was evidence, theory or interpretation. The average person listening to him won't have the psychological training needed to critique this (in the same way that I don't have the medical training to critique medical coronavirus research, for example). So his opinions are delivered to people as easy-listening psychological expertise, and there are certainly a few landmine opinions in there.
Hawke, JPB is right on this issue. The breakdown of the nuclear family from the 1960s onwards has had a significant impact on the mental health of men, for the reason that it is the fathers who are often asked to leave the household, which leaves young boys without male role models in their family home. Fathers, like mothers, do play an important role in child development and emotional regulation. The result has been highly destructive for men over the last 50 years - in terms of worsening outcomes related to sucicide, unemployement, homelessness, depression, educational attainment etc. In lots of ways, men have been doing worse in comparison to women in just these domains alone. I'd also point out that young boys without fathers are also of risk of developing ADHD, which some theoretically regard as a symptom of 'dad deprivation'. If we look at America, most young boys that committ serious crimes (e.g. school shootouts) come from broken homes without a strong male role model. Most men in the penal system often come from homes without fathers and most boys that committ other gang crimes come from similar backgrounds. Unfortunately, the evidence indicates that men from ethnic minorities (e.g. African American) are more vulnerable to the breakdown of the family unit, which is why a lot of their outcomes tend to be worse (I recommend reading the Moynihan Report produced in the mid 1960s).

So, yes, JPB is right and your relative is also correct in the sense that the breakdown of the family has had a significant negative effect on men. I do advise you that bias against men can be quite common, particularly in the social sciences, and if we look at the statistics they do suffer just as much as women and other groups, but in different ways. I would be minfdul that your own biases do not obsure your awareness or judgment on these issues, especially when it comes to working with them.

If you want references, I recommend reading the Boy Crisis by Dr Warren Farrell, who goes into far more detail. I'd also consider recommending it to your relative if he is interested still. Discriminiation and Disparities by Dr Thomas Sowell also touches upon the breakdown of the nuclear family, from a more economic and factual perspective.
"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts" - Patrick Moynihan

hawke
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Alternatives to Jordan Peterson

Post by hawke » Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:33 am

I think we're at cross purposes about the point I was trying to make there. I was criticising the logical leaps in his argument and the blurring of evidence and interpretation in his interviews. I didn't share my views on nuclear families, so while yours are interesting and thanks for the references to books you've provided, I won't comment on the specific points you've made as that wasn't the discussion I was aiming to start or engage in.

We can all benefit from being mindful of our own biases.

User avatar
miriam
Site Admin
Posts: 7941
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: Bucks
Contact:

Re: Alternatives to Jordan Peterson

Post by miriam » Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:13 pm

KalEl wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:01 am
Hawke, JPB is right on this issue. The breakdown of the nuclear family from the 1960s onwards has had a significant impact on the mental health of men, for the reason that it is the fathers who are often asked to leave the household, which leaves young boys without male role models in their family home. Fathers, like mothers, do play an important role in child development and emotional regulation. The result has been highly destructive for men over the last 50 years - in terms of worsening outcomes related to sucicide, unemployement, homelessness, depression, educational attainment etc. In lots of ways, men have been doing worse in comparison to women in just these domains alone. I'd also point out that young boys without fathers are also of risk of developing ADHD, which some theoretically regard as a symptom of 'dad deprivation'. If we look at America, most young boys that committ serious crimes (e.g. school shootouts) come from broken homes without a strong male role model. Most men in the penal system often come from homes without fathers and most boys that committ other gang crimes come from similar backgrounds. Unfortunately, the evidence indicates that men from ethnic minorities (e.g. African American) are more vulnerable to the breakdown of the family unit, which is why a lot of their outcomes tend to be worse (I recommend reading the Moynihan Report produced in the mid 1960s).

So, yes, JPB is right and your relative is also correct in the sense that the breakdown of the family has had a significant negative effect on men. I do advise you that bias against men can be quite common, particularly in the social sciences, and if we look at the statistics they do suffer just as much as women and other groups, but in different ways. I would be minfdul that your own biases do not obsure your awareness or judgment on these issues, especially when it comes to working with them.

If you want references, I recommend reading the Boy Crisis by Dr Warren Farrell, who goes into far more detail. I'd also consider recommending it to your relative if he is interested still. Discriminiation and Disparities by Dr Thomas Sowell also touches upon the breakdown of the nuclear family, from a more economic and factual perspective.
You do realise a lot of this is either nonsense, or correlation stated as causality?

To pick out one screaming example: "young boys without fathers are also of risk of developing ADHD, which some theoretically regard as a symptom of 'dad deprivation'." nonsense. ADHD is theoretically neurodevelopmental and genetic, but even if you believe (as I do) that a lot of other stuff that is experiential is swept into this category, it is to do with trauma and dysregulation of the fight or flight system - something most often caused by exposure to conflict/abuse - including domestic violence, which is most common if warring parents do not separate, and most commonly and dangerously perpetrated by men against women.

Same with men in the penal system, the key issue is abuse and exposure to violence, not the absence of fathers, and racial differences in outcome are at least partially accounted for by increased socioeconomic deprivation and the additional stresses of racism and social disadvantage (and skewed conviction and sentencing rates, with the police tendency to target black males and view them as potential criminals is another contributory factor).
Miriam

See my blog at http://clinpsyeye.wordpress.com

KalEl
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:19 am

Re: Alternatives to Jordan Peterson

Post by KalEl » Fri Dec 04, 2020 4:30 pm

miriam wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:13 pm
KalEl wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:01 am
Hawke, JPB is right on this issue. The breakdown of the nuclear family from the 1960s onwards has had a significant impact on the mental health of men, for the reason that it is the fathers who are often asked to leave the household, which leaves young boys without male role models in their family home. Fathers, like mothers, do play an important role in child development and emotional regulation. The result has been highly destructive for men over the last 50 years - in terms of worsening outcomes related to sucicide, unemployement, homelessness, depression, educational attainment etc. In lots of ways, men have been doing worse in comparison to women in just these domains alone. I'd also point out that young boys without fathers are also of risk of developing ADHD, which some theoretically regard as a symptom of 'dad deprivation'. If we look at America, most young boys that committ serious crimes (e.g. school shootouts) come from broken homes without a strong male role model. Most men in the penal system often come from homes without fathers and most boys that committ other gang crimes come from similar backgrounds. Unfortunately, the evidence indicates that men from ethnic minorities (e.g. African American) are more vulnerable to the breakdown of the family unit, which is why a lot of their outcomes tend to be worse (I recommend reading the Moynihan Report produced in the mid 1960s).

So, yes, JPB is right and your relative is also correct in the sense that the breakdown of the family has had a significant negative effect on men. I do advise you that bias against men can be quite common, particularly in the social sciences, and if we look at the statistics they do suffer just as much as women and other groups, but in different ways. I would be minfdul that your own biases do not obsure your awareness or judgment on these issues, especially when it comes to working with them.

If you want references, I recommend reading the Boy Crisis by Dr Warren Farrell, who goes into far more detail. I'd also consider recommending it to your relative if he is interested still. Discriminiation and Disparities by Dr Thomas Sowell also touches upon the breakdown of the nuclear family, from a more economic and factual perspective.
You do realise a lot of this is either nonsense, or correlation stated as causality?

To pick out one screaming example: "young boys without fathers are also of risk of developing ADHD, which some theoretically regard as a symptom of 'dad deprivation'." nonsense. ADHD is theoretically neurodevelopmental and genetic, but even if you believe (as I do) that a lot of other stuff that is experiential is swept into this category, it is to do with trauma and dysregulation of the fight or flight system - something most often caused by exposure to conflict/abuse - including domestic violence, which is most common if warring parents do not separate, and most commonly and dangerously perpetrated by men against women.

Same with men in the penal system, the key issue is abuse and exposure to violence, not the absence of fathers, and racial differences in outcome are at least partially accounted for by increased socioeconomic deprivation and the additional stresses of racism and social disadvantage (and skewed conviction and sentencing rates, with the police tendency to target black males and view them as potential criminals is another contributory factor).
I have no idea who you are Miriam but I do not think approaching a stranger in such a condescending manner is the appropriate way to engage in a thoughtful and respectful discussion. I trust/hope this is not how you come across in person.

Of course, I disagree with you. A lot of evidence provided in social sciences is based on correlations and even in other professions such as economics. For example, how do we know that living in poverty or deprivation increases the risk of violence? We can't conduct a controlled experiment to assume causality where we impoverish participants in order to see how much they engage in aggressive behavior? It's not ethical. We have to conduct correlational analysis to see, and the results may not be how they appear. For example, if we look at the economic data in the UK we can see that during the first half of the 20th century the GDP per capita was far less than it is today (i.e. we were pooer) but the amount of gun crime in London has skyrocketed, so violence has gone up. So the correlational analysis indicates that in the UK as GDP per capita has gone up so has gun violence. So if living in poverty and deprivation doesn't always account for the increase in gun violence, what does?

And the research that is coming from institutions, particularly the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, has pointed directly that this increase in crime along with various other social pathology is strongly correlated with the breakdown of the family that started in the 1960s. And regarding your point about racism, there is absolutely no evidence that racism alone accounts for differences between groups. If we look at the US, approximately 70% of African Americans are raised in households without fathers, and this represents a stark contrast with White Americans at 27%, and a worse finding than in the mid-1960s when only 22% of African Americans were raised without fathers. And during this time, various outcomes for blacks have steadily gotten worse (unemployment, violence, teenage pregnancy, etc.) and are far worse when compared to whites today. And there is no way discrimination or racism accounts for this because we as a society were far more racist six decades ago than we are today, especially after strict regulations like the 2010 Equality Act as a recent example.

At the end of the day, these are strong indicators that the breakdown of the family has had an impact on society. And I will point out that most men who are in the penal system in the US come from households without fathers, and all boys that commit mass shootings in the US come from families without fathers, as well as those recruited into ISIS. These are findings not to be underestimated nor neglected, you may not agree with them because they do not gel with what seems a radical feminist idealogy you have, but they are there.
"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts" - Patrick Moynihan

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest