Isn’t he a train psychologist? I mean a professor at University of Toronto? PhD at McGill, spent time at Harvard?

Seems he’d be a reliable expert on things like how to mentally process global warming?!?

You can't just put "mentally process" in front of a subject and then claim that a psychologist is the person to be a reliable expert in them. Is he a reliable expert in how to "mentally process quantum mechanics"? How about how to "mentally process epidemiology"?

What about all the trained professional climatologists pleading for the last few decades for the governments of the world to change their policies? Is that mass hysteria as well?

So if one's standpoint is ignored and "noble" enough, it is acceptable to talk children into anxiety disorders so that these noble ideas will be acted upon? I find this morally questionable, but that's just me.

Don't worry the anxiety is only there as long as crisis hasn't hit. Then anger takes over.

You brought the children into the argument. Until then it was Jordan Peterson vs climate science. Leave the children outside the debate for now. You're trying to use them as an example in much the same way that many people will bring up "think of the children". Jordan Peterson needs to argue the points raised by the climatologists.

> the kids marching in their little organised-by-adult-pied-piper protests suffer from a form of induced mass hysteria

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.

He is and, no, being a psychologist does not make able to tell people what to think. For example clinical psychologist are specifically trained not to pass down their own personal opinions about politics and social issues to their patients.

Also being a psychologist does not make you a philosopher, anthropologist, sociologist, political analyst and so on.

Like 100% of people ... I think people need to stop thinking that others with a bit of fame are somewhat special or always right etc.

Isn't this just appeal to authority in different clothes? I mean most conversations going on between people are people talking about things they are not trained in and they don't cite reliable sources.

Ah I am totally tired of these comments (parent). It’s like according to them you can’t say anything without citing a source. [1]

[1] citation needed

Whenever people posted something I disagreed with, or specifically doubted, I would respond by asking them to cite sources.

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".

I think the issue is both the commanding tone most of the time that the commenter who submitted the claim somehow must do the work of finding a citation and posting it as proof. But what _is_ a citation after all? Just someone else saying the same thing. The problem is, then we can't have original ideas as those would be first thoughts. Also, just because a citation can be provided doesn't make it true or false.

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.

I suppose it depends what it is. If a very specific fact is mentioned, they ought to have a source in mind already, or how else would they know. For example, if specific figures or statistics are mentions, it should require no work to find those because where else would they come from - you shouldn't be stating such things from memory if you can't recall their source.

> 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").

Note the original ancestor comment I've reacted to:

> 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.

Having a conversation in a pub is completely different from public speaking and publishing books.

Even more so when people try to sound authoritative or portray themselves as role models for others.

The two books Peterson has published are topics he should be an expert in. I disagree that public speaking should have the same rigor as publishing papers. 99% of all public speaking is people just saying their opinion. And that is fine as well.

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.

You can shut down the conversation about global warming with the same method - kids are not trained or experienced enough to ask for huge politics changes fixing climate change. Back to school, get a job first and all the standard phrases. I don't think it helps with the discussion either way.