(Topic starts at 9:30)
It's either that, or he allowed someone to take over his social media channels and does not check on content.
That isn't in tune with reality. Maybe a lot of people are lucky enough to experience a life where nothing goes wrong - I doubt it - but there are a lot of disasters in the world where a life can just fall apart. And if you love anything, you're going to lose it and that will really hurt. The options are basically suffering or a monk-like abstinence from emotion and attachment.
Someone having a chaotic, even shambolic, life doesn't disqualify them from giving life advice. That is just normal. The best and worst of us have objectively horrible existences filled with disasters. Most people don't talk about the sheer number of things that go wrong because it makes for distressing chit-chat.
Peterson does good work in being open about some of that stuff. That is part of why he is popular.
I could counter your argument and say that him pulling himself out of his recent depression is evidence that his ideas work. If a dermatologist gets an acne breakout and then fixes it, we don't blame them for the breakout, we commend them on addressing a difficult problem. Either way, this counter-argument of mine, and your original argument, are both silly. If his depression was more biologically grounded, he deserves neither credit nor blame. If his depression was due to social situations like cheating on his wife and feeling immense guilt, then yes, we can blame him for creating a depression based on his own stupidity. But neither of us knows the situation and so it's an irrelevant thing to bring up at best.
Philosophy doesn’t have to be based on individual actions and results to be helpful.
Would you say Socrates shouldn’t be listened to because his life ended in shambles? Peterson isn’t anywhere near Socrates, but I find it interesting that you would discount his information because of his personal life.
> ... There he passed his philosophy of Cynicism to Crates, who taught it to Zeno of Citium, who fashioned it into the school of Stoicism, one of the most enduring schools of Greek philosophy...
You know Peterson is a licensed clinical psychologist right? It’s literally his job to give mental health advice for money.
Or are you just against mental health workers getting paid?
Why do you believe that, other than calling him a "drug addict" for getting addicted to a prescribed anti-depression drug?
https://youtu.be/BQWjyo1m0Yg "Jordan Peterson doesn't understand George Orwell"
Seems he’d be a reliable expert on things like how to mentally process global warming?!?
You are making a good example of a political statement dressed as a scientific truth.
Similarly to ideas like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology, masquerading one's own ideas behind scientific-sounding words is how a scientist loses credibility.
Also being a psychologist does not make you a philosopher, anthropologist, sociologist, political analyst and so on.
[1] citation needed
I was consistently downvoted for doing so, as if I was trolling; so I stopped. HN is a place for interesting discussion, not correct discourse, apparently.
So, we either need to establish this as a place where IMHO is always implicit, or where it's reasonable to ask for source to anything claimed to be factual. Right now, the rule is "Citation needed for things I find inconvenient, free pass for anything I care not to question".
So it comes off as if commanding to provide a citation is purely used for shutting off the commenter. Just the tone 'citation needed' contains the implicit assumption that the citation is _needed_. No it's not. Whoever asks it is simply using higher authority as a weapon, because often, it's impossible to provide citation. And even if it is possible, it requires significant time-cost. This is a forum, not a dissertation. Let's discuss the merits of the idea instead.
> Just someone else saying the same thing.
Not really. "proofs" aside (e.g crypto or math), someone else can have positions or credentials that qualify them to comment on something, making them a legitimate authority.
> we can't have original ideas
An idea or concept isn't the same things as a stated fact though
> just because a citation can be provided doesn't make it true or false
Not sure what this means. I think it affects perceived probability, but this feels like a philosophical point.
> comes off as if commanding to provide a citation is purely used for shutting off the commenter
I feel this is often the case, but I think the inconsistency is the issue.
> the implicit assumption that the citation is _needed_. No it's not.
Depends what this means, which again can go off into the philosophical. Keeping to the guidelines isn't needed in some sense; nor is obeying the law or staying alive. If we stick to what as a community is desirable, I think it some cases citations should be required, or at least posts should be downvoted as unhelpful/misinformation if they spread assertions of fact that they don't care to support.
> often, it's impossible to provide citation
again, I wonder what kind of thing you are suggesting here: anything purported as "factual" should have a reason to believe it is true, or be explicitly labelled otherwise (anecdotal, for example, or "IMHO" are both "non-factual").
> Jordan Peterson talks about many topics he's not trained in without citing reliable sources.
We should all have the right to talk about topics without acquiring official training. That's my main argument. You responded to facts which is a subset of this.
Re facts and misinformation, that's a hard problem and you are probably right that being required to cite sources would slow misinformation. I think the issue is that most online conversations are casual and this burden would absolutely kill them.
Given this trade-off, I suspect no online community requires it - definitely not this place. Then some random Joe comes along and says 'citation needed'. Which is trying to enforce a made-up rule. He may think it is desirable or that it should be required but it is not required and communities have mods for a reason. Maybe I'll add a comment from now on that 'citation needed' itself needs a citation.
I think the proper way to go about it would be something like: "I'm surprised about {FACT}, do you have a source I could check?". Without the assumption that the original commenter is required to do it.
- Even though I think we are arguing on different planes, thanks for your thoughtful response.
Even more so when people try to sound authoritative or portray themselves as role models for others.
If everything that was ever said in a public speaking position is 100% proven fact humanity would stagnate really quickly. It's just not possible.