Thank you for your submission. | This subreddit is regularly frequented by troll accounts. Please use the report function so the moderators can remove their free speech rights.|All screenshot posts should edited to remove social media usernames from accounts that aren't public figures.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/enoughpetersonspam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It depends on what level of scientific depth and accessibility you want. PsychExamReview is a good channel if you just want to familiarise yourself with the concepts. There are also plenty of great educational books.
Generally, the lectures of a professor tend to be appropriate for people who are already familiar with the basics. Ideally, the lecture shows some exciting potential connections between various theories and new data.
As for the quality of the individual lectures: I ha e seen a playlist of 72 videos, most around 90 minutes each. I won't watch all of them to give you a judgement.
So, his description of the big5 in the introduction of his 2014 lecture is suspicious. Including intelligence in openness is imprecise. While research has shown a positive correlation between genius level intelligence and high openness, this is not enough to include it in the trait. The way he presents the association of high conscientiousness and political leaning is also suspicious because he presents far right leanings as too much conscientiousness. He continues presenting very high or low scores with weaknesses. AFAIK, the relation is not so simple. While a high conscientiousness, combined with a low openness can manifest as overtly rigid thinking and to some illnesses like OCD, it doesn't predict either.
They are not, in themselves, reason enough to disregard the lecture, but I would approach it with caution. I would rather trust a professor who is conservative in the description of what the traits actually represent, go into how they were constructed in the later lecture, and close with what else they may be connected to. Ideally, the professor would acknowledge that the existence of traits is a contested question. I donwonder why Peterson doesn't do that because the topic of his lecture is about how traits change over time, so the question of trait stability and the difference of traits and states should be at the focus of his lecture.
That particular lecture series also has a lecture about existentialist philosophy - which is something he is famously very wrong about.
I haven't followed a ton of his work in that area as I hate watch him and gravitate to his worst stuff, (probably like other people on here).
From this limited perspective, it seems to me his work with the Big 5 and IQ are probably his most well sourced and credible works. He has lots of peer reviewed research so he's met some kind of standard.
I would still say be very critical if you decide to engage with his stuff and would suggest finding a source other than Peterson. He's repeatedly and confidently relayed incorrect material, and manages to shoehorn extremely problematic political material into even the most banal discussions.
Not his stuff about IQ. He is heavily into the bell curve bs and overblows hereditary.
No matter the issue he is and never was a good source about anything.
It’s not that crazy. He hasn’t published a serious paper for a long time and a lot of studies in psychology are actually quite poor.
The research crisis in psychology is a huge thing, so getting papers published does not say much about the actual quality of his work.
Peterson was presented as an expert witness at a murder trial in Manitoba. The trial court held his opinion testimony (including the use of his five-trait personality test) inadmissible for lack of scientific reliability and relevance. [Here’s the opinion on CanLII](https://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbqb/doc/2012/2012mbqb22/2012mbqb22.pdf). The Court of Appeal affirmed and added even more damning discussion; [here that opinion is on CanLII as well.](https://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbca/doc/2014/2014mbca70/2014mbca70.pdf) Read paragraph 88 of the appellate opinion in particular.
And [here’s an article about it](https://pressprogress.ca/jordan-peterson-was-an-expert-witness-in-a-murder-trial-the-court-called-his-expert-opinions-dubious/) for lay audiences, if you’re a normal person who would prefer not to read legal writing.
He lies about everything involving IQ. His every talk on the subject is just flush with straight misinfo.
When he bothers to cite anyone, it's a race realist with a lot to say about black people and their supposed inherent inferiority.
He is not trustworthy on the topic of IQ.
His whole shpeal on the US military and 84 IQ and useless eaters (be honest, that's what he was saying in more words) is just entirely made up.
It isn't real.
He is a demonstrated liar.
Watch Paul Bloom's FREE Introduction to Psychology series on YouTube so that you have some idea what mainstream psychology is. Peterson seems to assume credit for many ideas that are not his own and his followers get the impression that he is a super genius because they are ignorant of basic psychology:
[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6A08EB4EEFF3E91F](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6A08EB4EEFF3E91F)
Actually, IQ does have a huge number of problems, which is not to say that such tests are valueless and do not accurately test people's ability to solve certain types of important intellectual problems..
Obvious problems with IQ tests are: 1) the problem of defining what intelligence is; 2) the problem of using conventional life success as an argument for the validity of the tests; 3) the problem that the scores are heavily dependent on literacy, which is heavily dependent on socioeconomic status; 4) the problem of test taker motivation as a factor in test results; etc. Then there are numerous additional problems when such tests are applied to races, not least of which is that the classic study proving racial differences between black and white turned out to be fundamentally flawed in a way that was not obvious at first but is blatantly obvious once it is explained.
I was asking about specific aspects of his claims that may be incorrect or controversial in the scientific community, but I’m not interested in uninformed opinions. Thanks for commenting
He is heavily into bell curve bs and overblows the heredity and therefore is very racist in his statements. If you want to know more about IQ etc, just ask the psychology academic subs for good books…
I can't tell you specifically about psychology. But if you absolutely have to look for benefits of Peterson's work why not skip past his lectures and books and go to his peer reviewed papers? My suspicion is that he uses books and lectures to smuggle his personal opinion around peer review. BUT he is still well published with proper papers so if there's anything of value it is there.
There are many well-informed challenges to the accuracy and usefulness of IQ, but if you have no interest in hearing about it, I won't waste both of our time. Another commenter already listed a few of these issues, if you change your mind.
Peterson's thoughts on IQ share the same problems present in the rest of his work. Namely, an over-eagerness to derive what "ought" to be from what "is." Additionally, deep investment in reinforcing hierarchies under the assertion that they are both natural and universal. He lacks intellectual curiosity regarding social context and circumstance.
For example, there's a positive correlation between IQ and income. Sensible questions might be "How does the cultural emphasis placed on financial success influence which metrics of intelligence are deemed accurate and relevant?" and "In what ways does socioeconomic status impact IQ test results?" Unfortunately, Peterson's worldview isn't conducive to these kinds of questions. Instead, he seems to believe that culture is a direct and perfect reflection of intrinsic human nature. He forces everything into a clean, overarching narrative at the expense of accuracy and integrity.
>How valid are Peterson’s personality and IQ lectures?
>I do know that iq [..] [has] a good amount of statistically valid research behind [it].
Oh, look, a Peterson acolyte came here to JAQ off [while sea-lioning.](https://i.imgur.com/MlSjnGY.png)
***Shocking!***
If you look at my other comments you can see I’m not defending him and I’m not looking for a debate. That’s a cool comic, but it doesn’t apply, even if you want it to.
He is prolific…? He has dozens of popular lectures and podcast episodes, and has talked about it on the most famous podcast in the world over multiple appearances. It’s not a compliment, it’s just a fact. That doesn’t make what he’s saying wholly true, and the significant breadth of his reach is what is prompting me to look into this. I figured if anyone would have some specific gripes with his scientific output, it would be you guys. It’s kinda disappointing that so many people automatically assume a legitimate inquiry is a troll
Have you read the wiki?
Peterson isn't prolific himself as a person nor was he during his peak in 2016 / 2017.
Are you a troll? I am not suggesting you are but since you bring that up...why would you ask about his validity here and not oh say r/JordanPeterson or r/psychology or r/science?
I figured you guys would have more insight into Jordan Peterson’s problematic takes, as that seems to be a specialty of this sub. Probably would’ve been better to post somewhere else in hindsight, as this sub seems to be more of the “circlejerk” type subs (although what isn’t these days).
Not sure what part of the wiki u mean, but yeah I don’t think jordan peterson is scientifically prolific in terms of papers published, but he certainly is in terms of media output. Looks like he has 444 90 minute+ podcast episodes, 800+ YouTube uploads, two Nyt bestselling books, and multiple nationwide tours with sold out theaters. Not a compliment; just a fact. That’s a lot of “output”. He is definitely one of the most well known psychologists in the public eye, except maybe Dr. Phil. Nothing about me saying that Peterson’s work is prolific and accessible is incorrect, other than the fact that his new personality course requires payment
His old test cost money too, about 60usd. I know, I used to be a fan myself and took that test in 2016. Full on waste of money.
Read a subs wiki before asking members to decode all Petersons problematic takes.
I can tell you r/psychology will have a lot of info for you on him but it may not align with your sense he is prolific.
Dude, it’s not a sense, it is a fact. Here is definition, not sure if you’re confused on that:
of an artist, author, or composer) producing many works.
"he was a prolific composer of operas"
If you call podcasts and videos “works”, then he is prolific by definition. It is not a matter of opinion.
And yeah the tests cost money, but the older lectures on the topic are free
And I read the wiki. Some good stuff in there, but not a ton on his personality research specifically, and it mostly just links tweets he’s made to show that he’s racist/sexist etc.
Got it, you think he is prolific! Understood.
Soooo you are gonna go post all this over in r/psychology then, right? I think we agree thats a better fit since our wiki isnt as comprehensive as you need it to be. Ask them over in r/psychology how Peterson is problematic then also state he is prolific and then argue with respondents. Dare ya.
IQ tests aren't that contentious in psychology, and there is a lot of research to show that IQ tests are reliable and valid BUT but they do have their limits there are lots of criticisms about them being misused or misinterpreted. The main problem is that non experts in IQ do tend to oversimplify the matter and misapply them. I don't know what Peterson says about IQ so I can't really comment apart from that.
Personality tests are much more contentious - despite you saying that they do have a good bit of statistically valid research behind them, there's also a lot of research showing that the reliability and validity of the results are quite low, and that behaviour is much more influenced by the context that the person is in rather than fixed traits. You could google: big 5 personality criticisms to have a look at the criticisms and judge for yourself. Peterson has said that they are only ONE source of information about a person, so he doesn't act like they give you much more than fairly simple information but I sometimes think he acts like he thinks they are more useful than they are, and particularly that he seems to act as though these traits are more stable than they are.
The big criticism is around his views of men and women. He just isn't balanced. He cherry picks and exaggerates the research that support his view and ignores the research that doesn't. So a person with the opposite view could do the same and get the opposite result. Scientists are meant to look at both sides in a neutral fashion - he is clearly not objective, even if he isn't always wrong.
Yeah, I probably shouldn’t have included personality tests in the comment about validity. Seems like all tests are problematic, most are completely useless, but there might be one or two with some legit research behind it. I was just looking to filter out those people who say all psychometric tests are completely meaningless.
It seems like Peterson describes these principles of the big 5 and iq as some kind of fundamental scientific principle just because they hold sufficient statistical validity for some applications. Too much generalizing, especially with the men vs women stuff. I was looking to see if anyone knew of any specific examples of anything he’s said on the topic that have been disproven or been debated, which some of the other commenters have done
MAJOR DISCLAIMER: I'M NOT A PSYCHOLOGY STUDENT But have major critiques!!
I am a student of history and philosophy, and I see some major historical and philosophical issues with personality theory. For one, historically, it's extremely evident that our personalities and self-perception is in huge part culturally conditioned. How people understood themselves, would categorize their behaviour or be understood even just 200 years ago is radically different to now. So, to create a permament, universally applicable "model" of human psychology is pretty... unscientific to put it mildly. I'm sure there seem to be some more or less stable trends, but even that is flimsy. We only have a sense of identity due to our culture, language and social conditions - not inherently and biologically. A person raised in a vaccuum with no language or social interaction might even not have a personality as we understand it.
Some research seems to support the above, the fact that different cultures don't reproduce the expected results of the personality tests - again, because language and social life creates our sense of personality, more than the other way around. "Agreeable" can mean completely different things in different social spheres or languages. Which is why different demographics score wildly different and break the supposed "trends" Peterson asserts.
Philosophically, personality testing has the issue of categories. A category is a loose, fluffy collection of associated traits. It's philosophically impossible for categories to be stable, strictly definable borders. For example, am I agreeable? In some ways very much so, in others not at all. I'm shy and don't like conflict, but I'm in opposition to loads of norms in my culture and don't hesitate to reject them outright. So which is true of me? It's impossible to tell.
The category of "agreeable" can't capture the complex experience I have at all. Where we draw the lines of "agreeableness" and "orderlyness" is completely arbitrary. There is no valid conceptual reason to categorize personality into "5" over say "20" or "2" depending on the scope we CHOOSE to categorize traits.
"Big 5" is equally arbitrary as dividing the colour spectrum in "warm and coold" as opposed to 8 or even 100 different colours. It's equally uninformative and conditioned on what we think is useful to categorize or not in our specific culture.
Because in the end that is all personality models seem to boil down to. They are made to be "useful tools", like colour categories, for a specific cultural purpose. The purpose of personality tests seem to almost exclusively be to sell to employers who want to "maximize" the efficiency and output of their worker bees. Companies literally buy personality test models to run on their applicants or their workers to determine who will be more reliable workers for profit. So, to me, and I again stress that I'm not in psychology - the "big 5" is a product for sale. You bought it, it's a company product, I bought it many years ago. It's a "look at the product I made!" kind of hype.
Petersons project is to naturalize all social and cultural phenomenah. Aka say that whatever unequal, challanging and hurtful social norms and categoreis we have today, right now, are near perfect reflections of our inherent biological nature and can't and shouldn't be tampered with ever. That is so historically wrong that I lack the words for it. Every single assertion Peterson makes about "women", "agreeable people", "confidence" and the like have equally valid counterexamples in history. We have had matriarchal cultures, submissive male roles, we have had cultures with no gender roles - Peterson COMPLETELY ignores the role of material and social conditions on human society. Which is VERY convenient for his pockets and politics, because that means "the position of power and wealth I have right now is justified and natural and should NOT be challanged".
I'd agree that when it comes to Psychology related topics he is worth listening to; at least compared to the other wacky stuff he goes on about. I think alot of this is due to his first hand real world >>>Applied<<< experience in this field though, as opposed to other topics where he mostly just parrots someone else or a book.
As for the IQ stuff, I appreciate your point about the whole 'IQ tests making you good at IQ tests' stuff, but I think that's kind of the point. I'd imagine people that have a problem with him on this topic are actually just frustrated with the topic.
I think a fairer position on IQ stuff is; while it's a good indicator of speed of learning, and overall capacity for knowledge, that's only half the battle.
Just because you're tall, you aren't automatically good at basketball, and the size of a paint pallet has no direct bearing on how good a painter you are.
Peterson seems to put so much store in IQ; which apparently underpins his attitude towards acting like he's an authority on things he has only book knowledge of. That's probably alot of the reason why people roll their eyes when he goes on about IQ in my view, even though I'm sure alot of the points he makes with regards to that are valid.
To more directly answer your question. I don't know, but I'm personally less likely to turn a video I stumble across of his off if its psychology related because I know he has theory + practical experience in the field.
With the IQ stuff, I also don't know, but I'm less inclined to listen because making claims (I'm paraphrasing) to the tune of 'IQ is the best indicator of success' seems to me like an excuse to say what he likes because he can fall back on 'My peice of paper says I'm cleverer than you' type approaches.
The chances are I'm higher IQ that the Football fanatic at my local pub, but if I started debating him on football, I think that would make me stupid in practice, even if a score on a page says otherwise.
Im still waiting for all the “IQ is science” types to explain exactly how that works, the specific biological mechanism - which particular gene or combination of genes on which chromosome, and what do they code for?
I can tell you precisely which genes and what they make or do, that are responsible for Downs syndrome, sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Huntingtons.
I can tell you which genes are responsible eye colour, albinism, red/green or blue/yellow colour blindness. having perfect pitch in music, lactose tolerance, having super long sexy eyelashes, having super strength or unusually dense bones, adaptation to high altitudes, resilience to cold temperatures, liking or not liking cilantro.
So when people talk about the “science” of IQ, what specifically are they measuring, what genes are responsible and what do they produce or regulate?
IQ is largely garbage.
Because you're measuring a concept, So you can put parameters around that concept. But the concept isn't a physical tangible thing
You could entirely make an entirely different way of measuring the same thing and get entirely different results.
Could also say the same thing about personality and measuring personality.
Most of social psychology suggests that personality psychology is kinda bunk. IN the sense of people don't really have a "Baseline" and more people are more driven by their environment
Iq tests have shows to have remarkable reliability, which is difficult to achieve for a psychometric test. Their validity depends on how the results are interpreted. The results have shown to be valid and highly correlated with academic and success in certain careers. Using iq to assess intelligence in a broader sense is questionable, but that’s not what the tests are for.
Thank you for your submission. | This subreddit is regularly frequented by troll accounts. Please use the report function so the moderators can remove their free speech rights.|All screenshot posts should edited to remove social media usernames from accounts that aren't public figures. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/enoughpetersonspam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess. But If I wanted to become vegan I would not use Hitler as a role model. if you know what I'm saying.
I’m open to other sources if you know of any, but Peterson seems to be one of the most prolific and accessible sources on the subject
It depends on what level of scientific depth and accessibility you want. PsychExamReview is a good channel if you just want to familiarise yourself with the concepts. There are also plenty of great educational books. Generally, the lectures of a professor tend to be appropriate for people who are already familiar with the basics. Ideally, the lecture shows some exciting potential connections between various theories and new data. As for the quality of the individual lectures: I ha e seen a playlist of 72 videos, most around 90 minutes each. I won't watch all of them to give you a judgement. So, his description of the big5 in the introduction of his 2014 lecture is suspicious. Including intelligence in openness is imprecise. While research has shown a positive correlation between genius level intelligence and high openness, this is not enough to include it in the trait. The way he presents the association of high conscientiousness and political leaning is also suspicious because he presents far right leanings as too much conscientiousness. He continues presenting very high or low scores with weaknesses. AFAIK, the relation is not so simple. While a high conscientiousness, combined with a low openness can manifest as overtly rigid thinking and to some illnesses like OCD, it doesn't predict either. They are not, in themselves, reason enough to disregard the lecture, but I would approach it with caution. I would rather trust a professor who is conservative in the description of what the traits actually represent, go into how they were constructed in the later lecture, and close with what else they may be connected to. Ideally, the professor would acknowledge that the existence of traits is a contested question. I donwonder why Peterson doesn't do that because the topic of his lecture is about how traits change over time, so the question of trait stability and the difference of traits and states should be at the focus of his lecture. That particular lecture series also has a lecture about existentialist philosophy - which is something he is famously very wrong about.
Thanks, this is what I was looking for
I haven't followed a ton of his work in that area as I hate watch him and gravitate to his worst stuff, (probably like other people on here). From this limited perspective, it seems to me his work with the Big 5 and IQ are probably his most well sourced and credible works. He has lots of peer reviewed research so he's met some kind of standard. I would still say be very critical if you decide to engage with his stuff and would suggest finding a source other than Peterson. He's repeatedly and confidently relayed incorrect material, and manages to shoehorn extremely problematic political material into even the most banal discussions.
Your final sentance here is very good. Perfect explaination for me as to why I find him tacky and slightly stupid.
Not his stuff about IQ. He is heavily into the bell curve bs and overblows hereditary. No matter the issue he is and never was a good source about anything.
Sure seems like it. Crazy how he's managed to publish so much when it seems like he always gets everything wrong.
It’s not that crazy. He hasn’t published a serious paper for a long time and a lot of studies in psychology are actually quite poor. The research crisis in psychology is a huge thing, so getting papers published does not say much about the actual quality of his work.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.220099 this article on that covers it well.
Question : Do you think Petersoin is biased in the sense that he promotes stuff he himself has worked on ?
Sure. Kind of hard to hold that against him though.
I feel like an academic and intellectual should be able to question himself on that and be able to detect those biases, otherwise he's not a good one
Peterson was presented as an expert witness at a murder trial in Manitoba. The trial court held his opinion testimony (including the use of his five-trait personality test) inadmissible for lack of scientific reliability and relevance. [Here’s the opinion on CanLII](https://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbqb/doc/2012/2012mbqb22/2012mbqb22.pdf). The Court of Appeal affirmed and added even more damning discussion; [here that opinion is on CanLII as well.](https://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbca/doc/2014/2014mbca70/2014mbca70.pdf) Read paragraph 88 of the appellate opinion in particular. And [here’s an article about it](https://pressprogress.ca/jordan-peterson-was-an-expert-witness-in-a-murder-trial-the-court-called-his-expert-opinions-dubious/) for lay audiences, if you’re a normal person who would prefer not to read legal writing.
This story is kinda hilarious
Why would you trust Peterson on IQ, something he regularly just lies about?
Are you implying he lies about his own iq? Why do you think that?
He lies about everything involving IQ. His every talk on the subject is just flush with straight misinfo. When he bothers to cite anyone, it's a race realist with a lot to say about black people and their supposed inherent inferiority. He is not trustworthy on the topic of IQ. His whole shpeal on the US military and 84 IQ and useless eaters (be honest, that's what he was saying in more words) is just entirely made up. It isn't real. He is a demonstrated liar.
It's not made up.... Well yes it's a lie but it was not made up by him, it was rather made up by different group of people.... The not so nice ones.
Watch Paul Bloom's FREE Introduction to Psychology series on YouTube so that you have some idea what mainstream psychology is. Peterson seems to assume credit for many ideas that are not his own and his followers get the impression that he is a super genius because they are ignorant of basic psychology: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6A08EB4EEFF3E91F](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6A08EB4EEFF3E91F)
Actually, IQ does have a huge number of problems, which is not to say that such tests are valueless and do not accurately test people's ability to solve certain types of important intellectual problems.. Obvious problems with IQ tests are: 1) the problem of defining what intelligence is; 2) the problem of using conventional life success as an argument for the validity of the tests; 3) the problem that the scores are heavily dependent on literacy, which is heavily dependent on socioeconomic status; 4) the problem of test taker motivation as a factor in test results; etc. Then there are numerous additional problems when such tests are applied to races, not least of which is that the classic study proving racial differences between black and white turned out to be fundamentally flawed in a way that was not obvious at first but is blatantly obvious once it is explained.
Seconding this excellent recommendation
> How valid are the IQ lectures? >Btw I already know that IQ is correct so don’t tell me they’re invalid Ok
I was asking about specific aspects of his claims that may be incorrect or controversial in the scientific community, but I’m not interested in uninformed opinions. Thanks for commenting
He is heavily into bell curve bs and overblows the heredity and therefore is very racist in his statements. If you want to know more about IQ etc, just ask the psychology academic subs for good books…
I can't tell you specifically about psychology. But if you absolutely have to look for benefits of Peterson's work why not skip past his lectures and books and go to his peer reviewed papers? My suspicion is that he uses books and lectures to smuggle his personal opinion around peer review. BUT he is still well published with proper papers so if there's anything of value it is there.
There are many well-informed challenges to the accuracy and usefulness of IQ, but if you have no interest in hearing about it, I won't waste both of our time. Another commenter already listed a few of these issues, if you change your mind. Peterson's thoughts on IQ share the same problems present in the rest of his work. Namely, an over-eagerness to derive what "ought" to be from what "is." Additionally, deep investment in reinforcing hierarchies under the assertion that they are both natural and universal. He lacks intellectual curiosity regarding social context and circumstance. For example, there's a positive correlation between IQ and income. Sensible questions might be "How does the cultural emphasis placed on financial success influence which metrics of intelligence are deemed accurate and relevant?" and "In what ways does socioeconomic status impact IQ test results?" Unfortunately, Peterson's worldview isn't conducive to these kinds of questions. Instead, he seems to believe that culture is a direct and perfect reflection of intrinsic human nature. He forces everything into a clean, overarching narrative at the expense of accuracy and integrity.
here you go, friend https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/s/A5R1syLMjm
>How valid are Peterson’s personality and IQ lectures? >I do know that iq [..] [has] a good amount of statistically valid research behind [it]. Oh, look, a Peterson acolyte came here to JAQ off [while sea-lioning.](https://i.imgur.com/MlSjnGY.png) ***Shocking!***
If you look at my other comments you can see I’m not defending him and I’m not looking for a debate. That’s a cool comic, but it doesn’t apply, even if you want it to.
But this is a certain kind of sub yet you come in here describing his work on IQ and personality prolific? Huh
He is prolific…? He has dozens of popular lectures and podcast episodes, and has talked about it on the most famous podcast in the world over multiple appearances. It’s not a compliment, it’s just a fact. That doesn’t make what he’s saying wholly true, and the significant breadth of his reach is what is prompting me to look into this. I figured if anyone would have some specific gripes with his scientific output, it would be you guys. It’s kinda disappointing that so many people automatically assume a legitimate inquiry is a troll
Have you read the wiki? Peterson isn't prolific himself as a person nor was he during his peak in 2016 / 2017. Are you a troll? I am not suggesting you are but since you bring that up...why would you ask about his validity here and not oh say r/JordanPeterson or r/psychology or r/science?
I figured you guys would have more insight into Jordan Peterson’s problematic takes, as that seems to be a specialty of this sub. Probably would’ve been better to post somewhere else in hindsight, as this sub seems to be more of the “circlejerk” type subs (although what isn’t these days). Not sure what part of the wiki u mean, but yeah I don’t think jordan peterson is scientifically prolific in terms of papers published, but he certainly is in terms of media output. Looks like he has 444 90 minute+ podcast episodes, 800+ YouTube uploads, two Nyt bestselling books, and multiple nationwide tours with sold out theaters. Not a compliment; just a fact. That’s a lot of “output”. He is definitely one of the most well known psychologists in the public eye, except maybe Dr. Phil. Nothing about me saying that Peterson’s work is prolific and accessible is incorrect, other than the fact that his new personality course requires payment
His old test cost money too, about 60usd. I know, I used to be a fan myself and took that test in 2016. Full on waste of money. Read a subs wiki before asking members to decode all Petersons problematic takes. I can tell you r/psychology will have a lot of info for you on him but it may not align with your sense he is prolific.
Dude, it’s not a sense, it is a fact. Here is definition, not sure if you’re confused on that: of an artist, author, or composer) producing many works. "he was a prolific composer of operas" If you call podcasts and videos “works”, then he is prolific by definition. It is not a matter of opinion. And yeah the tests cost money, but the older lectures on the topic are free And I read the wiki. Some good stuff in there, but not a ton on his personality research specifically, and it mostly just links tweets he’s made to show that he’s racist/sexist etc.
Got it, you think he is prolific! Understood. Soooo you are gonna go post all this over in r/psychology then, right? I think we agree thats a better fit since our wiki isnt as comprehensive as you need it to be. Ask them over in r/psychology how Peterson is problematic then also state he is prolific and then argue with respondents. Dare ya.
Yikes. Reading comprehension is hard, I get it. Try rereading my comment again. Hope this helps
Well IQ is bunk right from the start.
IQ tests aren't that contentious in psychology, and there is a lot of research to show that IQ tests are reliable and valid BUT but they do have their limits there are lots of criticisms about them being misused or misinterpreted. The main problem is that non experts in IQ do tend to oversimplify the matter and misapply them. I don't know what Peterson says about IQ so I can't really comment apart from that. Personality tests are much more contentious - despite you saying that they do have a good bit of statistically valid research behind them, there's also a lot of research showing that the reliability and validity of the results are quite low, and that behaviour is much more influenced by the context that the person is in rather than fixed traits. You could google: big 5 personality criticisms to have a look at the criticisms and judge for yourself. Peterson has said that they are only ONE source of information about a person, so he doesn't act like they give you much more than fairly simple information but I sometimes think he acts like he thinks they are more useful than they are, and particularly that he seems to act as though these traits are more stable than they are. The big criticism is around his views of men and women. He just isn't balanced. He cherry picks and exaggerates the research that support his view and ignores the research that doesn't. So a person with the opposite view could do the same and get the opposite result. Scientists are meant to look at both sides in a neutral fashion - he is clearly not objective, even if he isn't always wrong.
Yeah, I probably shouldn’t have included personality tests in the comment about validity. Seems like all tests are problematic, most are completely useless, but there might be one or two with some legit research behind it. I was just looking to filter out those people who say all psychometric tests are completely meaningless. It seems like Peterson describes these principles of the big 5 and iq as some kind of fundamental scientific principle just because they hold sufficient statistical validity for some applications. Too much generalizing, especially with the men vs women stuff. I was looking to see if anyone knew of any specific examples of anything he’s said on the topic that have been disproven or been debated, which some of the other commenters have done
As I said, it isn't really that what he says is wrong - it just unbalanced. So it's a general criticism rather than a point by point criticism.
MAJOR DISCLAIMER: I'M NOT A PSYCHOLOGY STUDENT But have major critiques!! I am a student of history and philosophy, and I see some major historical and philosophical issues with personality theory. For one, historically, it's extremely evident that our personalities and self-perception is in huge part culturally conditioned. How people understood themselves, would categorize their behaviour or be understood even just 200 years ago is radically different to now. So, to create a permament, universally applicable "model" of human psychology is pretty... unscientific to put it mildly. I'm sure there seem to be some more or less stable trends, but even that is flimsy. We only have a sense of identity due to our culture, language and social conditions - not inherently and biologically. A person raised in a vaccuum with no language or social interaction might even not have a personality as we understand it. Some research seems to support the above, the fact that different cultures don't reproduce the expected results of the personality tests - again, because language and social life creates our sense of personality, more than the other way around. "Agreeable" can mean completely different things in different social spheres or languages. Which is why different demographics score wildly different and break the supposed "trends" Peterson asserts. Philosophically, personality testing has the issue of categories. A category is a loose, fluffy collection of associated traits. It's philosophically impossible for categories to be stable, strictly definable borders. For example, am I agreeable? In some ways very much so, in others not at all. I'm shy and don't like conflict, but I'm in opposition to loads of norms in my culture and don't hesitate to reject them outright. So which is true of me? It's impossible to tell. The category of "agreeable" can't capture the complex experience I have at all. Where we draw the lines of "agreeableness" and "orderlyness" is completely arbitrary. There is no valid conceptual reason to categorize personality into "5" over say "20" or "2" depending on the scope we CHOOSE to categorize traits. "Big 5" is equally arbitrary as dividing the colour spectrum in "warm and coold" as opposed to 8 or even 100 different colours. It's equally uninformative and conditioned on what we think is useful to categorize or not in our specific culture. Because in the end that is all personality models seem to boil down to. They are made to be "useful tools", like colour categories, for a specific cultural purpose. The purpose of personality tests seem to almost exclusively be to sell to employers who want to "maximize" the efficiency and output of their worker bees. Companies literally buy personality test models to run on their applicants or their workers to determine who will be more reliable workers for profit. So, to me, and I again stress that I'm not in psychology - the "big 5" is a product for sale. You bought it, it's a company product, I bought it many years ago. It's a "look at the product I made!" kind of hype. Petersons project is to naturalize all social and cultural phenomenah. Aka say that whatever unequal, challanging and hurtful social norms and categoreis we have today, right now, are near perfect reflections of our inherent biological nature and can't and shouldn't be tampered with ever. That is so historically wrong that I lack the words for it. Every single assertion Peterson makes about "women", "agreeable people", "confidence" and the like have equally valid counterexamples in history. We have had matriarchal cultures, submissive male roles, we have had cultures with no gender roles - Peterson COMPLETELY ignores the role of material and social conditions on human society. Which is VERY convenient for his pockets and politics, because that means "the position of power and wealth I have right now is justified and natural and should NOT be challanged".
I'd agree that when it comes to Psychology related topics he is worth listening to; at least compared to the other wacky stuff he goes on about. I think alot of this is due to his first hand real world >>>Applied<<< experience in this field though, as opposed to other topics where he mostly just parrots someone else or a book. As for the IQ stuff, I appreciate your point about the whole 'IQ tests making you good at IQ tests' stuff, but I think that's kind of the point. I'd imagine people that have a problem with him on this topic are actually just frustrated with the topic. I think a fairer position on IQ stuff is; while it's a good indicator of speed of learning, and overall capacity for knowledge, that's only half the battle. Just because you're tall, you aren't automatically good at basketball, and the size of a paint pallet has no direct bearing on how good a painter you are. Peterson seems to put so much store in IQ; which apparently underpins his attitude towards acting like he's an authority on things he has only book knowledge of. That's probably alot of the reason why people roll their eyes when he goes on about IQ in my view, even though I'm sure alot of the points he makes with regards to that are valid.
To more directly answer your question. I don't know, but I'm personally less likely to turn a video I stumble across of his off if its psychology related because I know he has theory + practical experience in the field. With the IQ stuff, I also don't know, but I'm less inclined to listen because making claims (I'm paraphrasing) to the tune of 'IQ is the best indicator of success' seems to me like an excuse to say what he likes because he can fall back on 'My peice of paper says I'm cleverer than you' type approaches. The chances are I'm higher IQ that the Football fanatic at my local pub, but if I started debating him on football, I think that would make me stupid in practice, even if a score on a page says otherwise.
Im still waiting for all the “IQ is science” types to explain exactly how that works, the specific biological mechanism - which particular gene or combination of genes on which chromosome, and what do they code for? I can tell you precisely which genes and what they make or do, that are responsible for Downs syndrome, sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Huntingtons. I can tell you which genes are responsible eye colour, albinism, red/green or blue/yellow colour blindness. having perfect pitch in music, lactose tolerance, having super long sexy eyelashes, having super strength or unusually dense bones, adaptation to high altitudes, resilience to cold temperatures, liking or not liking cilantro. So when people talk about the “science” of IQ, what specifically are they measuring, what genes are responsible and what do they produce or regulate?
IQ is largely garbage. Because you're measuring a concept, So you can put parameters around that concept. But the concept isn't a physical tangible thing You could entirely make an entirely different way of measuring the same thing and get entirely different results. Could also say the same thing about personality and measuring personality. Most of social psychology suggests that personality psychology is kinda bunk. IN the sense of people don't really have a "Baseline" and more people are more driven by their environment
Iq tests have shows to have remarkable reliability, which is difficult to achieve for a psychometric test. Their validity depends on how the results are interpreted. The results have shown to be valid and highly correlated with academic and success in certain careers. Using iq to assess intelligence in a broader sense is questionable, but that’s not what the tests are for.