-
Jordan Peterson vs Matt Dillahunty
- Thread starter Mafioso
- Start date
Mafioso -
I listened to it on the way to work today. Besides the sound quality being god awful, no pun intended, it wasn’t too bad. I felt like they had barely gotten started when it was Q&A time and I would like them to have had some more time.
Peterson debated Sam Harris in Vancouver (you can find it on YouTube) with Brett Weinstein (not sure if I have the name spelled right) as the moderator. I thought that Harris and Peterson got way more in-depth during that debate than this one. Also, the moderator did a great job - which is always nice to see.
I am a fan of the atheist experience and Matt is on there a lot. I think he has a very matter of fact way of explaining his positions and I do share a lot of the same beliefs that he does. That said, I didn’t hear anything new or particularly thought provoking during this debate. Not that there can be much “new” in this age old debate...
Your thoughts, Mafioso?
- VEYeah, I'm pretty much of the same opinion. I've actually watched all of them, and they are all excellent. I tend to like anything that Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty, and Richard Dawkins are involved in. Currently working through Dawkin's books and Sam Harris' podcast, and have watched hours of AXE with Dillahunty.
Up until this debate, and then subsequently the Harris and Peterson debates, I had a lot of respect for Peterson. I still want to respect him as a clinical psychologist, and certainly can't discredit his entire body of work based on a few hours of discussion- but some of his comments are pretty unexpected to hear from a clinical psychologist. Particularly his mention of things like no one quits cigarettes without a profound experience, or how he seemed to allude that taking psychedelics was a way to communicate with god.
His arguments for god are pretty weak here as well, and he seems to either hide or get lost(or both) in word salad. He says so much without really saying anything. If he did, he lost me a lot of the time.That statement about not being able to quit smoking without god was insane. I kept expecting him to get somewhere with that and eventually clarify that and make it make some amount of sense - but that certainly didn’t happen.
I wasn’t familiar with this Peterson fellow until about a week ago when I stumbled across an interview with him saying some pretty bizarre shit about his book - telling guys to nut-up (my word, not his, I believe he said ‘stop being wussies’) and that the Bible didn’t actually involve a world-wide flood (it was a metaphor or something?). I’ll have to go back there and check it out some more - I was admittedly stoned the first time and down a you-tube-rabbit-hole that evening. Anyway, I didn’t know enough about him to have any strong views either way - but this one certainly didn’t help him in my book.
Did he seem to be a bit “star struck” by Matt D. to you? It seemed like he had been waiting for the opportunity to tak to Matt for so long he choked when he finally got it. He was extremely conciliatory toward him. Maybe I miss read that, but I’ve seen him in other conversations where he was cocky and condescending at times. He gave off the opposite to me in this one.
Anyway, thanks for posting it. I had heard about it on the atheist experience but hadn’t gotten to look for it yet.
- VE
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 32,665
Peterson is out of his depth talking to Dillahunty about the existence of God. I've heard random callers to the atheist experience with much more compelling arguments. He talks in circles and rambles on forever without really saying anything. He uses big words to disguise the fact that he just plain sucks at debating.
He doesn't even deserve to be in the same sentence as Harris, and the idea that he could ever actually stand toe to toe with him makes me laugh.
Fact is, Peterson got famous from that viral video about the gender pronoun issue on the college campus in Canada. Because of his stance on that one issue, he gained a huge following and that has opened many doors for him in the past few years.
Yeah, same here... I was amazed to hear such statements from a psychology professor/clinical psychologist. Pure pseudoscience...
I've heard that his book "maps and meanings" or whatever is full of even more bizarre stuff. I've seen some pretty senseless graphs from it, where he is supposedly proving god or some bs.
I don't want to talk down on Peterson, but I don't think his ego would allow him to become star struck, as it appears to me that Peterson seems to think he is on to some revelation too complex for the rest of us simpletons to understand. It definitely appeared that he was emotionally shook in the moments that Dillahunty won the audience over, like that Peterson couldn't believe they would fall for his bs, and seemed almost surprised when he couldn't convince them of it.
Yeah and he now makes 5 figures per show and well into the 6's per tour, if not 7's(if I remember correctly, he states it publicly). It is admirable how he made his fame off the people attacking his character, and I can't question his credibility as a psychologist despite some very odd remarks. That said, I agree I don't think he belongs in the same arena as Harris- or really any other "great thinkers" like Dawkins or Dillahunty.
It honestly seems that Peterson engages in self-deception in order to defend or promote his belief in god/christianity. He often retreats to sayings like "throwing the baby out with the bath water", and other very common fallacies used to defend religion, especially argument from complexity. I wonder if even he can keep track of the meaning behind his word salads, and if he isn't just getting lost and, in the confusion, assuming he has proved something very complex and difficult to understand.I thought this critique on Peterson's views on Nazism was pretty interesting as well. I don't know enough about history to personally determine the accuracy of either on the subject of Nazis, but if it is true- and the facts appear to be there, then it is another example of Peterson going far out of his depth.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 32,665
^ that's crazy.
Yeah, definitely seems like he has molded all of his views to align with those of his fan base.
Foreigner
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 8,295
I enjoy listening to Peterson when he talks within his range, which includes psychology, sociology, and to some degree politics. He has become so famous now that people want to hear his learned views on everything, even if he isn't exactly qualified. For the most part, he seems to acknowledge the limits of his own knowledge, but like anybody he can only admit the limits he knows about. He can't admit to the limits he doesn't know about, like his views of the Nazis.
He doesn't seem to be a very adept philosopher beyond his field of expertise. He references philosophers but demonstrates shallow knowledge of them.
I've enjoyed his critiques of leftism and that was what originally drew me to him. It's rare to find a centrist who speaks on these matters so succinctly.Have you watched the debate Peterson v Dillahunty? You don't find his some of his comments disturbing, like the one about needing a mystical experience to quit smoking cigarettes?
I want to trust him but he loses a lot of credibility after making a statement like that then repeatedly trying to defend it when drawn into question. It makes me wonder what the outcome would have been if he was debating someone less skilled than Dillahunty.
@Foreigner
