I appreciate you drawing attention to this. It does fall pretty flat the moment you start to think about it. It’s trivially easy to imagine a very poor model of climate and then imagine small tweaks to make it better, and then iteratively improve this overtime. Like we would all imagine and be familiar with. It is a very anti-Bayesian statement from someone who should know better.
Update against Peterson, you mean? If so, yes, to an extent.
In a similar way to how I would update against Linus Pauling or Timothy Leary, weighted more towards the later part of their lives (or in Peterson’s case the recent part).
In an older Joe Rogan podcast he said something like “I’ve found a way to monetize SJWs.” Which is maybe the moment that he jumped the shark.
Whereas at one point he organically stumbled on to ideas that he thought were worthwhile but also happened to goad an opposition in to engaging with him and amplifying him, now he’s trying to deliberately engineer narratives that will goad an opposition in to engaging with him and amplifying him.
It’s not that what he’s saying can’t be true anymore, but rather that he (ironically) is optimizing for virality rather than truth… but that’s also basically everyone trying to be an influencer now. So he’s probably not uniquely evil as much as he’s a good person in a lucrative prison of perverse incentives.
I appreciate you drawing attention to this. It does fall pretty flat the moment you start to think about it. It’s trivially easy to imagine a very poor model of climate and then imagine small tweaks to make it better, and then iteratively improve this overtime. Like we would all imagine and be familiar with. It is a very anti-Bayesian statement from someone who should know better.
As a Bayesian, shouldn’t you update against the being the case, given this evidence?
Update against Peterson, you mean? If so, yes, to an extent.
In a similar way to how I would update against Linus Pauling or Timothy Leary, weighted more towards the later part of their lives (or in Peterson’s case the recent part).
In an older Joe Rogan podcast he said something like “I’ve found a way to monetize SJWs.” Which is maybe the moment that he jumped the shark.
Whereas at one point he organically stumbled on to ideas that he thought were worthwhile but also happened to goad an opposition in to engaging with him and amplifying him, now he’s trying to deliberately engineer narratives that will goad an opposition in to engaging with him and amplifying him.
It’s not that what he’s saying can’t be true anymore, but rather that he (ironically) is optimizing for virality rather than truth… but that’s also basically everyone trying to be an influencer now. So he’s probably not uniquely evil as much as he’s a good person in a lucrative prison of perverse incentives.