as a public intellectual he puts things into the public sphere (which I have looked at) and will rightly receive criticism for them, especially when they are nonsensical or even actively harmful. It is his job to convince me it's worth going deeper into his work, but he hasn't
and that's fine. I disagree with a lot of his political stances too. why not critique those directly though?
-
-
it's a strange way to have a discourse, ya know? Speaker: "I advocate Policy A to address rising anomie and economic problems in society" Critic: "your work on the migratory patterns of sea-birds in Chile is second rate!"
-
I'm not talking about his academic work though, am I? I'm talking about his weird self-help stuff, which is why he's famous. I've shown you explicit quotes which somehow are irrelevant because I haven't spent hours trawling through his work
-
yes, of limited relevance because shallow understanding of complicated subject matter does not produce highly relevant criticisms. repeating myself: make better criticisms. practice steel-manning. practice charitable interpretation. engage with material before dismissing it.
-
we're all heavily time constrained so I don't expect everyone to want to or be able to do this. that's totally fine. criticize something else in that case. there's lots of easy political bad-takes to criticize.
-
yes and a lot of them come from Peterson, including the takes that explicitly prompted the thread I linked to in the OP
-
absolutely. he is a shit-take factory. it's a target rich environment and it would be more profitable to pick out the shit-takes as worthy of criticizing. but dismissing psychological explanations of mythical symbology without understanding the context? come on.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.