Archive for the ‘Jordan Peterson’ Category

‘He could’ve killed somebody’: Victim in Boise 11-car hit-and-run crash reacts to wild video – KTVB.com

Video shows the driver of a yellow Mustang dragging a truck through a downtown Boise parking garage on Valentine's Day.

BOISE, Idaho A driver accused of causing extensive damage to multiple vehicles in a downtown Boise parking garage, should not have been behind the wheel, according to Idaho court records.

The driver of the Ford Mustang was caught on camera dragging a truck while hitting 10 other cars in the hit-and-run crash on Friday, Feb. 14.

The video, provided to KTVB by Jordan Peterson, has been making the rounds on social media.

He could've killed somebody, that really freaks me out, said Paul Pacheco, the owner of the truck seen dragged in the video.

Less than 24 hours after Fridays hit-and-run, police identified Demariea Dawkins as the Mustangs owner and a person of interest. On Tuesday, they called him a suspect.

According to Idaho Court Records, a judge sentenced Dawkins to seven years probation after he pleaded guilty to DUI and resisting arrest in Ada County in 2018. Records also show Dawkins driver's license was suspended for five years.

He knew what he was doing, he was purposely ramming my truck into other cars to get it unhooked off of his car, Pacheco said. So that's how the other 11 cars got taken out in the process in the garage.

Pacheco and his wife were downtown for Valentine's Day when they realized they forgot something in their truck.

When we got off the elevator, there were cops everywhere, there was debris everywhere, Pacheco said.

He first thought someone stole his truck, but later spoke with police and saw the video.

"When I saw the condition of it, what went through my mind was how can people be this way? It's frustrating, it hurts, Pacheco said.

Boise Police later found the mustang abandoned, but Dawkins was nowhere in sight.

As of Tuesday, police told KTVB, they still don't have Dawkins in custody but say once they do, he'll likely be arrested.

We are going to be charging him with multiple charges, one count of reckless driving, one count of driving with an open container and 11 counts of leaving the scene of an accident, due to the 11 vehicles that were damaged at the scene, BPD Sgt. Loren Hilliard said.

Read more here:
'He could've killed somebody': Victim in Boise 11-car hit-and-run crash reacts to wild video - KTVB.com

Spring Training Game Thread: Mets at Nationals, 1:05 PM – metsmerizedonline.com

The Mets are win-less two days into Spring Training so far. Conventionally that would mean theyre 0-2 but nope, they are 0-2-1. They dropped their first two games on Saturday (Marlins and Cardinals) and tied against the Cardinals yesterday. Of course, none of this actually matters.

The Mets travel to play the Nationals today and if you like following minor league pitching prospects, today is your day. David Peterson, Paul Sewald, Jordan Humphreys, Erasmo Ramirez and Walker Lockett are all expected to see time today.

Two names that immediately stand out to us Peterson and Humphreys. With all of the trades since before the 2019 season, Peterson is the closest starting pitching prospect to the major leagues and he is battling Ramirez, Lockett, Sewald and Gsellman this spring for who is the 5th starter after Porcello/Wacha.

Jordan Humphreys is exciting to see again, hes been battling injuries for the last couple of years (he was dominating in 2017 before that) and he got into games this Fall posting a 0.77 ERA over 11.2 innings.

So where as the Mets didnt bring a heavy contingent of regular pitchers, they brought a heavy regular lineup today. Its way too early in Spring to be talking about lineup construction but we will anyway. Theres quite the discussion around whether Nimmo or McNeil should hit lead-off, today well see McNeil, with Nimmo in the two-hole (I feel it should be flipped but whatever).

Well also get another look at Luis Guillorme at short today who is off to a great spring with the glove. At second base, Eduardo Nunez looks to start his long shot chance to the Mets roster as a backup middle infielder.

Lets Go Mets! Further Reading from 213 Miles From Shea: We wrote profiles on David Peterson recentlyhereandhere. We also have a profile on Jordan Humphreyshere.

Go here to see the original:
Spring Training Game Thread: Mets at Nationals, 1:05 PM - metsmerizedonline.com

Jordan Peterson – Wikipedia

Canadian clinical psychologist

Jordan Bernt Peterson (born June 12, 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist and a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. His main areas of study are in abnormal, social, and personality psychology,[1] with a particular interest in the psychology of religious and ideological belief[2] and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance.[3]

Peterson has bachelor's degrees in political science and psychology from the University of Alberta and a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from McGill University. He was a post-doctoral fellow at McGill from 1991 to 1993 before moving to Harvard University, where he was an assistant professor in the psychology department.[4][5] In 1998, he returned to Canada to become a faculty member in the psychology department at the University of Toronto, where he eventually became a full professor.[6]

Peterson's first book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief (1999), examined several academic fields to describe the structure of systems of beliefs and myths, their role in the regulation of emotion, creation of meaning, and several other topics such as motivation for genocide.[7][8][9] His second book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, was published in January 2018.[4][10][11]

In 2016, Peterson released a series[12] of YouTube videos criticizing political correctness and the Canadian government's Bill C-16, "An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code". The act added "gender identity and expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination,[a][13] which Peterson characterised as an introduction of compelled speech into law,[14][15][16] although legal experts have disagreed.[17] He subsequently received significant media coverage, attracting both support and criticism.[4][10][11] Several writers have associated Peterson with an "Intellectual Dark Web".[18][19][20][21][22]

Peterson was born on June 12, 1962.[23] He grew up in Fairview, Alberta, a small town northwest of his birthplace (Edmonton).[24] He was the eldest of three children born to Walter and Beverley Peterson. Beverley was a librarian at the Fairview campus of Grande Prairie Regional College, and Walter was a school teacher.[25][26] His middle name is Bernt ( BAIR-nt),[27] after his Norwegian great-grandfather.[28]

When Peterson was 13, he was introduced to the writings of George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Ayn Rand by his school librarian Sandy Notley (the mother of Rachel Notley, leader of the Alberta New Democratic Party and 17th Premier of Alberta).[29] He worked for the New Democratic Party (NDP) throughout his teenage years, but grew disenchanted with the party. He saw his experience of disillusionment resonating with Orwell's diagnosis, in The Road to Wigan Pier, of "the intellectual, tweed-wearing middle-class socialist" who "didn't like the poor; they just hated the rich".[25][30] He left the NDP at age 18.[31]

After graduating from Fairview High School in 1979, Peterson entered the Grande Prairie Regional College to study political science and English literature.[2] He later transferred to the University of Alberta, where he completed his B.A. in political science in 1982.[31] Afterwards, he took a year off to visit Europe. There he began studying the psychological origins of the Cold War, 20th-century European totalitarianism,[2][32] and the works of Carl Jung, Friedrich Nietzsche, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,[25] and Fyodor Dostoevsky.[32] He then returned to the University of Alberta and received a B.A. in psychology in 1984.[33] In 1985, he moved to Montreal to attend McGill University. He earned his Ph.D. in clinical psychology under the supervision of Robert O. Pihl in 1991, and remained as a post-doctoral fellow at McGill's Douglas Hospital until June 1993, working with Pihl and Maurice Dongier.[2][34]

From July 1993 to June 1998,[1] Peterson lived in Arlington, Massachusetts, while teaching and conducting research at Harvard University as an assistant professor in the psychology department. During his time at Harvard, he studied aggression arising from drug and alcohol abuse and supervised a number of unconventional thesis proposals.[31] Two former PhD students, Shelley Carson, a psychologist and teacher from Harvard, and author Gregg Hurwitz recalled that Peterson's lectures were already highly admired by the students.[4] In July 1998, he returned to Canada and eventually became a full professor at the University of Toronto.[1][33]

Peterson's areas of study and research are in the fields of psychopharmacology, abnormal, neuro, clinical, personality, social, industrial and organizational,[1] religious, ideological,[2] political, and creativity psychology.[3] Peterson has authored or co-authored more than a hundred academic papers[35] and has been cited almost 8,000 times as of mid-2017.[36]

For most of his career, Peterson had maintained a clinical practice, seeing about 20 people a week. He had been active on social media, and in September 2016 he released a series of videos in which he criticized Bill C-16.[12][29][37] As a result of new projects, he decided to put the clinical practice on hold in 2017[10] and temporarily stopped teaching as of 2018.[26][38]

In June 2018, Peterson debated with Sam Harris at the Orpheum Theatre in Vancouver while moderated by Bret Weinstein, and again in July at the 3Arena in Dublin and The O2 Arena in London while moderated by Douglas Murray, over the topic of religion and God.[39][40] In April 2019, Peterson debated professor Slavoj iek at the Sony Centre in Toronto over happiness under capitalism versus Marxism.[41][42]

In 1999 Routledge published Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief. The book, which took Peterson 13 years to complete, describes a comprehensive theory about how people construct meaning, form beliefs and make narratives using ideas from various fields including mythology, religion, literature, philosophy and psychology in accordance to the modern scientific understanding of how the brain functions.[31][5][43]

According to Peterson, his main goal was to examine why both individuals and groups participate in social conflict, explore the reasoning and motivation individuals take to support their belief systems (i.e. ideological identification[31]) that eventually results in killing and pathological atrocities like the Gulag, the Auschwitz concentration camp and the Rwandan genocide.[31][5][43] He considers that an "analysis of the world's religious ideas might allow us to describe our essential morality and eventually develop a universal system of morality".[43] Jungian archetypes play an important role in the book.[4]

In 2004, a 13-part TV series based on Peterson's book Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief aired on TVOntario.[25][33][44]

In January 2018, Penguin Random House published Peterson's second book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. The work contains abstract ethical principles about life, in a more accessible style than Maps of Meaning.[10][4][11]To promote the book, Peterson went on a world tour.[45][46][47] As part of the tour, Peterson was interviewed in the UK by Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News which generated considerable attention.[48][49][50] The book topped bestselling lists in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the US, and the United Kingdom.[51][52][53] As of January 2019, Peterson is working on a sequel to 12 Rules for Life.[54]

In 2013, Peterson began recording his lectures ("Personality and Its Transformations", "Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief"[55]) and uploading them to YouTube. His YouTube channel has gathered more than 1.8 million subscribers and his videos have received more than 65 million views as of August 2018.[37][56] In January 2017, he hired a production team to film his psychology lectures at the University of Toronto. He used funds received on the crowdfunding website Patreon after he became embroiled in the Bill C-16 controversy in September 2016. His funding through Patreon has increased from $1,000 per month in August 2016 to $14,000 by January 2017, more than $50,000 by July 2017, and over $80,000 by May 2018.[29][37][57][58] In December 2018, Peterson decided to delete his Patreon account after Patreon's bans of political personalities who were violating Patreon's terms of service regarding hate speech.[59][60]

Peterson has appeared on many podcasts, conversational series, as well other online shows.[56][61] In December 2016, Peterson started his own podcast, The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast, which has included academic guests such as Camille Paglia, Martin Daly, and James W. Pennebaker.[62] On his YouTube channel he has interviewed Stephen Hicks, Richard J. Haier, and Jonathan Haidt among others.[62] In March 2019, the podcast joined the Westwood One network with Peterson's daughter as a co-host on some episodes.[63] Peterson supported engineer James Damore in his action against Google.[11]

In May 2017, Peterson began The Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories,[64] a series of live theatre lectures, also published as podcasts, in which he analyzes archetypal narratives in Book of Genesis as patterns of behavior ostensibly vital for personal, social and cultural stability.[11]

In March 2019, Peterson had his invitation of a visiting fellowship at Cambridge University rescinded. He had previously said that the fellowship would give him "the opportunity to talk to religious experts of all types for a couple of months", and that the new lectures would have been on Book of Exodus.[65] A spokesperson for the University said that there was "no place" for anyone who could not uphold the "inclusive environment" of the university.[66] After a week, the vice-chancellor Stephen Toope explained that it was due to a photograph with a man wearing an Islamophobic shirt.[67] The Cambridge University Students' Union released a statement of relief, considering the invitation "a political act to ... legitimise figures such as Peterson" and that his work and views are not "representative of the student body".[68] Peterson called the decision a "deeply unfortunate ... error of judgement" and expressed regret that the Divinity Faculty had submitted to an "ill-informed, ignorant and ideologically-addled mob".[69][70]

In 2005, Peterson and his colleagues set up a for-profit company to provide and produce a writing therapy program with a series of online writing exercises.[71] Titled the Self Authoring Suite,[25] it includes the Past Authoring Program (a guided autobiography); two Present Authoring Programs which allow the participant to analyze their personality faults and virtues in terms of the Big Five personality model; and the Future Authoring Program which guides participants through the process of planning their desired futures. The latter program was used with McGill University undergraduates on academic probation to improve their grades, as well as since 2011 at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University.[72][73] The programs were developed partially from research by James W. Pennebaker at the University of Texas at Austin and Gary Latham at the Rotman School of Management of the University of Toronto.[4] Peterson's co-authored 2015 study showed significant reduction in ethnic and gender-group differences in performance, especially among ethnic minority male students.[73][74] According to Peterson, more than 10,000 students have used the program as of January 2017, with drop-out rates decreasing by 25% and GPAs rising by 20%.[25]

Peterson has characterized himself as a "classic British liberal",[32][75][76] and as a "traditionalist".[77] He has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be right wing,[56] as, for example, The New York Times has described Peterson as "conservative-leaning",[78] and The Washington Post has described him as "conservative".[79] Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Yoram Hazony stated, "The startling success of his elevated arguments for the importance of order has made him the most significant conservative thinker to appear in the English-speaking world in a generation."[80] Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs opines that Peterson has been seen "as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal, because his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected."[81]

Peterson's critiques of political correctness range over issues such as postmodernism, postmodern feminism, white privilege, cultural appropriation, and environmentalism.[61][82]

Writing in the National Post, Chris Selley said Peterson's opponents had "underestimated the fury being inspired by modern preoccupations like white privilege and cultural appropriation, and by the marginalization, shouting down or outright cancellation of other viewpoints in polite society's institutions",[83] while in The Spectator, Tim Lott stated Peterson became "an outspoken critic of mainstream academia".[32] Peterson's social media presence has magnified the impact of these views; Simona Chiose of The Globe and Mail noted: "few University of Toronto professors in the humanities and social sciences have enjoyed the global name recognition Prof. Peterson has won".[37]

According to his studyconducted with one of his students, Christine Brophyof the relationship between political belief and personality, political correctness exists in two types: "PC-egalitarianism" and "PC-authoritarianism", which is a manifestation of "offense sensitivity".[84] Jason McBride claims Peterson places classical liberals in the first type, and places so-called social justice warriors, who he says "weaponize compassion", in the second.[25][2] The study also found an overlap between PC-authoritarians and right-wing authoritarians.[84]

Peterson considers that the universities should be held as among the most responsible for the wave of political correctness which appeared in North America and Europe.[37] According to Peterson, he watched the rise of political correctness on campuses since the early 1990s. In his view the humanities have become corrupt and less reliant on science. Instead of "intelligent conversation, we are having an ideological conversation". From his own experience as a professor, he states that the students who are coming to his classes are uneducated about and unaware of the mass exterminations and other crimes against humanity perpetrated by Stalinism and Maoism, which were not given the same attention as fascism and Nazism. He also says that "instead of being ennobled or inculcated into the proper culture, the last vestiges of structure are stripped from [the students] by post-modernism and neo-Marxism, which defines everything in terms of relativism and power".[32][85][86]

Peterson, 2017[85]

Peterson says that postmodern philosophers and sociologists since the 1960s[82] have built upon and extended certain core tenets of Marxism and communism while simultaneously appearing to disavow both ideologies. He says that it is difficult to understand contemporary Western society without considering the influence of a strain of postmodernist thought that migrated from France to the United States through the English department at Yale University. He states that certain academics in the humanities:[85]

... started to play a sleight of hand, and instead of pitting the proletariat, the working class, against the bourgeois, they started to pit the oppressed against the oppressor. That opened up the avenue to identifying any number of groups as oppressed and oppressor and to continue the same narrative under a different name.... The people who hold this doctrinethis radical, postmodern, communitarian doctrine that makes racial identity or sexual identity or gender identity or some kind of group identity paramountthey've got control over most low-to-mid level bureaucratic structures, and many governments as well.

Peterson's perspective on the influence of postmodernism on North American humanities departments has been compared to Cultural Marxist conspiracy theories.[51][87][88][89]

Peterson says that "disciplines like women's studies should be defunded" and advises freshman students to avoid subjects like sociology, anthropology, English literature, ethnic studies, and racial studies, as well as other fields of study he believes are corrupted by the neo-Marxist ideology.[90][91][92] He says that these fields, under the pretense of academic inquiry, propagate unscientific methods, fraudulent peer-review processes for academic journals, publications that garner zero citations,[93] cult-like behaviour,[91] safe-spaces,[90] and radical left-wing political activism for students.[82] Peterson has proposed launching a website which uses artificial intelligence to identify and showcase the amount of ideologization in specific courses. He announced in November 2017 that he had temporarily postponed the project as "it might add excessively to current polarization".[94][95]

Peterson has criticized the use of the term "white privilege", stating that "being called out on their white privilege, identified with a particular racial group and then made to suffer the consequences of the existence of that racial group and its hypothetical crimes, and that sort of thing has to come to a stop.... [It's] racist in its extreme".[82] In regard to identity politics, while the "left plays them on behalf of the oppressed, let's say, and the right tends to play them on behalf of nationalism and ethnic pride", he considers them "equally dangerous" and that what should be emphasized instead are individualism and individual responsibility.[96] He has also been prominent in the debate about cultural appropriation, stating the concept promotes self-censorship in society and journalism.[97]

On September 27, 2016, Peterson released the first installment of a three-part lecture video series, entitled "Professor against political correctness: Part I: Fear and the Law".[29][14] In the video, he stated he would not use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty, saying it fell under compelled speech, and announced his objection to the Canadian government's Bill C-16, which proposed to add "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and to similarly expand the definitions of promoting genocide and publicly inciting hatred in the hate speech laws in Canada.[14][98]

He stated that his objection to the bill was based on potential free-speech implications if the Criminal Code is amended, as he claimed he could then be prosecuted under provincial human-rights laws if he refuses to call a transgender student or faculty member by the individual's preferred pronoun.[15] Furthermore, he argued that the new amendments, paired with section 46.3 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, would make it possible for employers and organizations to be subject to punishment under the code if any employee or associate says anything that can be construed "directly or indirectly" as offensive, "whether intentionally or unintentionally".[16] Other academics and lawyers challenged Peterson's interpretation of C-16.[15]

The series of videos drew criticism from transgender activists, faculty, and labour unions; critics accused Peterson of "helping to foster a climate for hate to thrive" and of "fundamentally mischaracterising" the law.[99][29] Protests erupted on campus, some including violence, and the controversy attracted international media attention.[100][101][102] When asked in September 2016 if he would comply with the request of a student to use a preferred pronoun, Peterson said "it would depend on how they asked me[...] If I could detect that there was a chip on their shoulder, or that they were [asking me] with political motives, then I would probably say no[...] If I could have a conversation like the one we're having now, I could probably meet them on an equal level".[102] Two months later, the National Post published an op-ed by Peterson in which he elaborated on his opposition to the bill and explained why he publicly made a stand against it:

I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.

I have been studying authoritarianism on the right and the left for 35 years. I wrote a book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, on the topic, which explores how ideologies hijack language and belief. As a result of my studies, I have come to believe that Marxism is a murderous ideology. I believe its practitioners in modern universities should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to promote such vicious, untenable and anti-human ideas, and for indoctrinating their students with these beliefs. I am therefore not going to mouth Marxist words. That would make me a puppet of the radical left, and that is not going to happen. Period.[103]

In response to the controversy, academic administrators at the University of Toronto sent Peterson two letters of warning, one noting that free speech had to be made in accordance with human rights legislation and the other adding that his refusal to use the preferred personal pronouns of students and faculty upon request could constitute discrimination. Peterson speculated that these warning letters were leading up to formal disciplinary action against him, but in December the university assured him that he would retain his professorship, and in January 2017 he returned to teach his psychology class at the University of Toronto.[104][29]

In February 2017, Maxime Bernier, candidate for leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, stated that he shifted his position on Bill C-16, from support to opposition, after meeting with Peterson and discussing it.[105] Peterson's analysis of the bill was also frequently cited by senators who were opposed to its passage.[106] In April 2017, Peterson was denied a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant for the first time in his career, which he interpreted as retaliation for his statements regarding Bill C-16.[36] A media-relations adviser for SSHRC said, "Committees assess only the information contained in the application."[107] In response, Rebel News launched an Indiegogo campaign on Peterson's behalf.[108] The campaign raised C$195,000 by its end on May 6, equivalent to over two years of research funding.[109] In May 2017, Peterson spoke against Bill C-16 at a Canadian Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs hearing. He was one of 24 witnesses who were invited to speak about the bill.[106]

In November 2017, Lindsay Shepherd, the teaching assistant in a Wilfrid Laurier University first-year communications course, was censured by her professors for showing a segment of The Agenda, which featured Peterson debating Bill C-16 with another professor, during a classroom discussion about pronouns.[110][111][112] The reasons given for the censure included the clip creating a "toxic climate", being compared to a "speech by Hitler",[30] and being itself in violation of Bill C-16.[113] The censure was later withdrawn and both the professors and the university formally apologized.[114][115][116] The events were criticized by Peterson, as well as several newspaper editorial boards[117][118][119] and national newspaper columnists[120][121][122][123] as an example of the suppression of free speech on university campuses. In June 2018, Peterson filed a $1.5-million lawsuit against Wilfrid Laurier University, arguing that three staff members of the university had maliciously defamed him by making negative comments about him behind closed doors.[124] As of September2018,[update] Wilfrid Laurier had asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that it was ironic for a purported advocate of free speech to attempt to curtail free speech.[125]

Peterson has argued that there is an ongoing "crisis of masculinity" and "backlash against masculinity" in which the "masculine spirit is under assault".[24][126][127][128] He has argued that feminism and policies such as no-fault divorce have had adverse effects on gender relations and have destabilized society.[126] He has argued that the left characterises the existing societal hierarchy as an "oppressive patriarchy" but "dont want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence."[24] Peterson has said that men without partners are likely to become violent, and has noted that male violence is reduced in societies wherein monogamy is a social norm.[24][126] He has attributed the rise of Donald Trump and far-right European politicians to what he says is a negative reaction to a push to "feminize" men, saying "If men are pushed too hard to feminize they will become more and more interested in harsh, fascist political ideology."[129] He attracted considerable attention over a 2018 Channel 4 interview where he clashed with interviewer Cathy Newman on the topic of the gender pay gap.[130][131] Peterson disputed the contention that the disparity was solely due to sexual discrimination.[131][132][133]

Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change,[134][135] saying he is "very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change,"[136] and that "[y]ou can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved".[135][137]

Peterson married Tammy Roberts in 1989.[29] The couple have one daughter and one son.[25][29]

In a 2017 interview, Peterson was asked if he was a Christian; he responded, "I suppose the most straight-forward answer to that is yes".[138] When asked if he believes in God, Peterson responded: "I think the proper response to that is No, but I'm afraid He might exist".[10] Writing for The Spectator, Tim Lott said Peterson draws inspiration from Jung's philosophy of religion and holds views similar to the Christian existentialism of Sren Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich. Lott also said that Peterson has respect for Taoism, as it views nature as a struggle between order and chaos and posits that life would be meaningless without this duality.[32]

Starting around 2000, Peterson began collecting Soviet-era paintings.[30] The paintings are displayed in his house as a reminder of the relationship between totalitarian propaganda and art, and as examples of how idealistic visions can become totalitarian oppression and horror.[4][38] In 2016, Peterson became an honorary member of the extended family of Charles Joseph, a Kwakwaka'wakw artist, and was given the name Alestalagie ('Great Seeker').[30][139]

In late 2016, Peterson went on a strict diet consisting only of meat and some vegetables to control severe depression and an autoimmune disorder, including psoriasis and uveitis.[26][140] In mid-2018 he stopped eating vegetables, and continued eating only beef (see carnivore diet).[141] In 2019, Peterson entered a rehabilitation facility after experiencing symptoms of physical withdrawal when he stopped taking clonazepam, an anti-anxiety drug. He had begun taking the drug upon his doctor's recommendation following his wife's cancer diagnosis.[142][143][144] In early 2020, his daughter revealed that he had spent the previous year struggling with addiction to benzodiazepine tranquilizers and had gone to Russia for an experimental treatment that included a medically induced coma. He was neurologically damaged and unable to type or walk unaided.[145]

See the rest here:
Jordan Peterson - Wikipedia

Jordan Peterson: What You Should Know About the Alt-Right …

If you hang around intellectuals or academics long enough, one of them will make the joke that they wish they were conservative because there is a lot more money in it.Jordan Peterson is living proof of that.

The Koch Brothers and the Heritage Foundation are eager to fund and promote the brightest minds conservatism has to offer. They intend to use the free market language of the right, there is a high demand for intellectuals who will defend conservative ideas, but there is a very low supply.

So if youre wondering how 55-year-old Canadian psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson became an overnight sensation, going from obscure academic to international bestseller lauded in the New York Times as most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now, you dont have to look much further than that old academic joke.

Jordan Peterson is famous because in the era of the resurgent alt-right, the loose collection of conservatives that align with white supremacists, there are few intellectuals willing to align themselves with the movement. The alt-right is in need of intellectuals to justify their fascist worldview, and Peterson has been ready.

Until 2016, Peterson languished in relative obscurity. He taught at Harvard and then at the University of Toronto after earning a Ph.D. from McGill. In the fall of 2016, he became embroiled in a controversy that would cost him his teaching position, but would ultimately launch him to stardom.

READ MORE:

In Canada, as in America, the rights of transgender people have been a hotly debated issue.

Peterson found himself a viral star after opposing a bill known as C-16, which sought to add gender identity and expression to laws regarding discrimination. Peterson began his now thriving YouTube career with a series of lectures arguing that asking people to refer to others by their preferred gender pronouns infringes on free speech. His stance on this issue led to an interview with Channel 4s Cathy Newman which also went viral (the video currently has nine million views).

Suddenly, Peterson was a star with a platform and an eager audience. His views include an Ayn Randian focus on the individual and masculinity, as well as darker viewpoints including anti-Social Justice Warrior screeds, critiques of feminism, the suggestion that political correctness is the undoing of Western culture, and even the implication that violence against women is okay if the woman deserves it.

If Peterson were to advocate these views outright, without a carefully constructed academic veneer, he would be treated like Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopoulos. Even more likely, he would be largely barred from the public square. But Peterson cleverly follows the playbook of respectability, cloaking his views in Jungian archetypes, fatherly self-help diatribes, and labored academic language. He lends himself an aura of intellectual seriousness his ideas do not deserve. Beneath all the layers of pretense and respectability, Peterson is making an argument you can find at any bar in America. Its a hard world out there, he argues, so get whats yours.

Prior to this year, Petersons only published book was a tome titled Maps of Meaning. In this text, Peterson relied heavily on Swiss psychologist Carl Jung whose work involved interpreting life through mythic archetypes or deeply rooted characters and symbolic motifs that reappear in art, dreams, myths, and religions.

The primary project of Maps of Meaning was to prove modern culture is natural. By this, he means that the structures of society are in place because of how humans are meant to exist in terms both intellectual myth and evolutionary science. This is an incredibly niche subject, but it isnt hard to see why this would be appealing to conservative defenders of the status quo. His argument boils down to Make Western Civilization Great Again.

In January, Peterson released 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote for Chaos. Several hundred pages slimmer than his earlier work, the book mixes his ideas about masculinity, individualism, and mythic destiny with a self-help style manual for living.

12 Rules breaks up his long academic and philosophical digressions into chapters with titles fitting of a book like The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, like Stand Up Straight with Your Shoulders Back and Be Precise In Your Speech. With this book, Peterson rebranded as a kind of Malcolm Gladwell of the right, boiling down varied, complicated concepts into digestible chunks that support generally accepted ideas that he can then use to bolster his misogynistic, bigoted, reactionary worldview.

READ MORE:

In the book and lectures, Peterson contends that a man should be a dominant figure. It is feminine aspects, Peterson argues, of society that prevent men from self-actualizing. Boys are suffering in the modern world, he cautions his audience. The only way to stop the suffering is to toughen up. He refers to his female critics as rabid harpies.

Taking into account Petersons audience and particular appeal, this approach makes sense. Whether you want to talk about the alt-right, Proud Boys, Pepes, gamers (Peterson counts PewDiePie among his fans), or the economically anxious, there is a mass of young, underemployed white men who chafe at the modern liberal answers society provides. Peterson offers them a role model, a mentor, and even a father figure to look up to and affirm their isolated and often prejudiced worldview.

Understanding Petersons intellectual and cultural project will also help you understand his popular YouTube videos a little better. For example, why does Peterson spend some much time talking about Disney movies? Famously, Petersonlikes to tear into Frozen for being SJW propaganda. Remembering that Peterson is setting out to affirm a more traditional view of masculinity, free of the influence of things like Marxism, postmodernism, leftists, or what many people might call social progress, his anger makes complete sense.

While Peterson has a long list of the forces of modernity he is generally opposed to, writers like Shuja Haider of Viewpoints have pointed out that he declines to engage in direct criticism of the work of the various authors he critiques. Essentially, he rails against modernity without ever really bothering to define it. If he did, he would have to admit he is speaking of things like civil rights and gender equality. This is just one example of the kind of lack of intellectual rigor that led Macleans Tabetha Southey to call Peterson, the stupid mans smart person.

Peterson is careful not to explicitly align himself with fascists. But it isnt a giant intellectual leap from Petersons words to the actions in Charlottesville. How does one toughen up if not through violence? He says he is not of the alt-right, but he has said, If men are pushed too hard to feminize, they will become more and more interested in harsh, fascist political ideology.

Peterson tries to duck out of taking responsibility for the political actions of his followers. One of his 12 Rules is Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world. But everything is especially political when you are positioning yourself as a cultural theorist. As the world develops around us, we are impacted every day by the worlds political realities. We pay rent on that house we have to put in order.

Nathan J. Robinson is the author of perhaps the most thorough dismantling of Petersons intellectual credibility so far. As he concludes his argument, he makes exactly this point:

Peterson speaks to disaffected millennial men, validating their prejudices about feminists and serving as a surrogate father figure. Yet hes offering them terrible advice, because the individual responsibility ethic makes one feel like a failure for failing Millennials struggle in part because of a viciously competitive economy that is crushing them with debt and a lack of opportunityBut if you cant pay your student loans, or your rent, and you cant get a better job, what use is it to tell you that you should adopt a confident lobster-posture?

Here Robinson refers to an anecdote in 12 Rules in which Peterson explains that human males, like lobsters, are subject to a rigid hierarchy of dominator and dominated. While he is welcome to indulge in whatever metaphors he likes, the sad view dominates his work. He may sound smarter than your average fascist, but his wordsare little more than furious, insignificant bluster.

The only thing you can really learn from Jordan Peterson is that while being a conservative academic might be lucrative, it certainly isnt worth it.

Original post:
Jordan Peterson: What You Should Know About the Alt-Right ...

A Controversial Study Claimed To Explain Why Women Dont Go Into Science And Tech. It Just Got A 1,113-Word Correction. – BuzzFeed News

Women are underrepresented in science, tech, engineering, and math (STEM), and two years ago a study offered a counterintuitive explanation as to why. The authors pointed out that countries with more gender equality, like Finland, tended to have fewer women earning degrees in those fields.

But more women studied science and tech in countries with less gender-progressive policies, such as Algeria, reported the researchers, who called this phenomenon the gender-equality paradox in STEM education.

The 2018 finding drew widespread attention from mainstream media outlets, like the Atlantic and Ars Technica, as well as from conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute and Jordan Peterson, the controversial psychologist most famous for his YouTube videos addressing what hes called the crisis of masculinity. Peterson and others cited the study to argue that, free from societal constraints, women choose to stay away from technical fields a choice they make because of an innate lack of interest, not because of the patriarchy.

But outside researchers questioned that conclusion after they tried, and failed, to replicate the original study. Sarah Richardson, a science historian at Harvard University, told BuzzFeed News that the study authors used a very selective set of data to produce a contrived and distorted picture of the global distribution of women in STEM achievement.

In December 2019, a lengthy 1,113-word correction was added to the paper, clarifying how the researchers had arrived at their conclusions and correcting several sentences and misleading figures. In a separate article and series of blog posts on Tuesday, Richardson and her colleagues at Harvards GenderSci Lab laid out what they saw as the significant problems with the studys methodology, including the researchers calculations for determining the percentage of women STEM graduates and the metrics they used to assess gender equity in each country.

And they called into question the studys fundamental premise: that the correlation the authors apparently found between national gender equity and women in STEM means the former directly affects the latter.

When we looked under the surface, this appears to be a case of massaging ones data selecting for different countries, particular gender measures, particular women-in-STEM measures to produce the narrative that you want to see, Richardson said.

In the end, we do not think that there is a gender-equality paradox.

But one of the studys authors, Gijsbert Stoet of the University of Essex, stands behind the correlation they found and argued that it remains even when using Richardsons preferred calculations. The problem with the critique, he said by email, is that they cannot explain the phenomenon we reported.

When the study came out in February 2018 in the journal Psychological Science, it provided fodder for the likes of YouTube channel Independent Man. Its not that women dont have the aptitude to take STEM subjects in the more egalitarian societies, explained one clip. They just choose not to.

This clip, which has been viewed more than 89,000 times, lives alongside videos like Debunking the Black Lives Matter Narrative and Toxic Femininity.

In an interview at the time, Peterson mentioned a great paper showing that as societies become more egalitarian, the enrollment gap between men and women in STEM fields increases. He added, And what do the feminists say about that? Pseudoscience.

And a member of the American Enterprise Institute cited it to argue that underrepresentation of women in STEM may actually be the result of the great advances in female empowerment, progress, and advancement that have taken place in recent decades, and not the result of systematic gender discrimination.

In the paper, a pair of psychologists Stoet and David Geary of the University of Missouri found that across most countries, girls are as good as boys, and often better, at math and science. But in countries with greater gender equality like Norway and Finland, women make up less than 25% of college graduates in STEM fields. In and of itself, this gender gap isnt news. But the researchers theorized that because these countries tend to be richer, women have the financial freedom to pursue their natural interests which drives them more toward the humanities.

In contrast, in countries with historically less gender equality, such as Algeria and Turkey, women make up much higher percentages of STEM degree-holders, according to their analysis. Because economic opportunities tend to be fewer there, those conditions may make relatively high-paying STEM occupations more attractive to women, Stoet and Geary wrote.

But Richardson thought a lot of these numbers seemed off. So she and a team tried to recreate the analysis with the publicly available data it was based on, including college graduation data from UNESCO.

The researchers had reported, for instance, that the percentage of women among STEM graduates in Algeria was 40.7%. But Richardson found that in 2015, UNESCO reported a total of 89,887 STEM graduates in Algeria, and 48,135 of them or 53.6% were women.

So where did 40.7% come from?

Eventually, Richardsons team would learn that Stoet and Geary had added different sets of numbers: the percentage of STEM graduates among women (in Algerias case, 26.66%) and the percentage of STEM graduates among men (38.89%). That added up to a total of 65.55%. Then they divided the percent of women STEM graduates by the total, producing a rate of 40.7%.

What they had done is create their own ratio of those two, which has never been validated or used in STEM research, Richardson said.

That metric was not explained in the paper. In the recently issued correction, the authors went into detail on the math theyd come up with.

After Richardson and her colleagues recalculated each countrys figures, they found that overall, the study underestimated the number of women STEM graduates worldwide by about 8%.

That wasnt the only problem. Even after Richardsons team learned about the study authors method of calculating the ratio, they still couldnt replicate all of their results. Richardson also took issue with the metric used to assess each countrys level of gender equity and the fact that the study did not examine trends over a long period of time.

Richardsons team found that there are large variations in the gender gaps between STEM graduates among countries, no matter how they are measured. These variations do not conform to simple patterns, Richardson and graduate student Joseph Bruch wrote in a blog post, adding that gender inequalities are not easily represented along a single dimension and with a single measure, as Stoet and Geary attempt to do.

Maria Charles, a sociologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who studies gender and STEM education and was not involved with Richardsons analysis, told BuzzFeed News by email, There is no evidence that gender stereotypes and unconscious gender biases are less pronounced in advanced industrial societies even in societies where women are well represented in universities, labor markets, and polities.

In a letter responding to Richardsons allegations, Stoet and Geary said they had chosen their metric to reflect a womans likelihood of completing a STEM degree compared to a mans. They also said that despite the specific approach to calculations theyd taken, the overall correlation that they had found between nations gender-equity levels and the number of women in STEM remained the same.

Richardson said she first emailed Stoet with questions about the source of his numbers in December 2018. He replied and then stopped writing back, she said, at which point she contacted the editors at Psychological Science.

Asked whether the paper should have been retracted instead of corrected, the editors, Tim Pleskac and Steve Lindsay, said by email: In our view, retraction is appropriate when the reported results have been convincingly shown to be fundamentally in error. In our view, the Stoet and Geary article, post-Corrigendum, was not fundamentally in error.

Richardson said that the messiness underlying the findings reinforces that there is no one factor that determines whether women pursue or succeed in science and technology.

Cultural patterns around womens achievement in and preferences for STEM are incredibly complex and incredibly diverse across the globe, she said.

Read more from the original source:
A Controversial Study Claimed To Explain Why Women Dont Go Into Science And Tech. It Just Got A 1,113-Word Correction. - BuzzFeed News