Cool examples, thanks! Yeah, these are issues outside of his cognitive expertise and it’s quite clear that he’s getting them wrong.
Note that I never said that Peterson isn’t making mistakes (I’m quite careful with my wording!). I said that his truth-seeking power is in the same weight class, but obviously he has a different kind of power than LW-style. E.g. he’s less able to deal with cognitive bias.
But if you are doing “fact-checking” in LW style, you are mostly accusing him of getting things wrong about which he never cared in the first place.
Like when Eliezer is using phlogiston as an example in the Sequences and gets the historical facts wrong. But that doesn’t make Eliezer wrong in any meaningful sense, because that’s not what he was talking about.
There’s some basic courtesy in listening to someone’s message, not words.
Sorry, but I think that is a lame response. It really, really isn’t just lack of expertise—it’s a matter of Peterson’s abandonment of skepticism and scholarly integrity. I’m sorry, but you don’t need to be a historian to tell that the ancient Egyptians didn’t know about the structure of DNA. You don’t need to be a statistician to know that coincidences don’t disprove scientific materialism. Peterson is a PhD who know the level of due diligence needed to publish in peer reviewed journals from experience. He knows better but did it anyway.
But if you are doing “fact-checking” in LW style, you are mostly accusing him of getting things wrong about which he never cared in the first place.
He cares enough to tell his students, explicitly, that he “really does believe” that ancient art depicts DNA—repeatedly! - and put it in public youtube videos with his real name and face.
Like when Eliezer is using phlogiston as an example in the Sequences and gets the historical facts wrong.
It’s more like if Eliezer used the “ancient aliens built the pyramids” theory as an example in one of the sequences in a way that made it clear that he really does believe aliens built the pyramids. It’s stupid to believe it in the first place, and it’s stupid to use it as an example.
There’s some basic courtesy in listening to someone’s message, not words.
Then what makes Peterson so special? Why should I pay more attention to him than, say, Deepak Chopra? Or an Islamist Cleric? Or a postmodernist gender studies professor who thinks western science is just a tool of patriarchal oppression? Might they also have messages that are “metaphorically true” even though their words are actually bunk? If Peterson gets the benefit of the doubt when he says stupid things, why shouldn’t everybody else? If uses enough mental gymnastics, almost anything can be made to be “metaphorically true”.
Peterson’s fans are too emotionally invested in him to really consider what he’s saying rationally—akin to religious believers. Yes, he gives his audience motivation and meaning—much in the same way religion does for other demographics- but that can be a very powerful emotional blinder. If you really think that something gives your life meaning and motivation, you’ll overlook its flaws, even when it means weakening your epistemology.
It’s not surprising when religious believers to retreat to the claim that their holy texts are “metaphorically true” when they’re confronted with the evidence that their text is literally false—but it’s embarrassing to see a supposed rationalist do the same when someone criticizes their favorite guru. We’re supposed to know better.
This is what the whole discussion is about. You are setting boundaries that are convenient for you, and refuse to think further. But some people in that reference class you are now denigrating as a whole are different from others. Some actually know their stuff and are not charlatans. Throwing a tantrum about it doesn’t change it.
(I upvoted that comment, but:) Truth-seeking is more than avoiding bias, just as typing is more than not hitting the wrong keys and drawing is more than not making your lines crooked when you want them straight.
Someone might have deep insight into human nature; or outstanding skill in finding mathematical proofs; or a mind exceptionally fertile in generating new ideas, some of which turn out to be right; or an encyclopaedic knowledge of certain fields. Any of those would enhance their truth-seeking ability considerably. If they happen not to be particularly good at avoiding bias, that will worsen their truth-seeking ability. But they might still be better overall than someone with exceptional ability to avoid bias but without their particular skills.
Cool examples, thanks! Yeah, these are issues outside of his cognitive expertise and it’s quite clear that he’s getting them wrong.
Note that I never said that Peterson isn’t making mistakes (I’m quite careful with my wording!). I said that his truth-seeking power is in the same weight class, but obviously he has a different kind of power than LW-style. E.g. he’s less able to deal with cognitive bias.
But if you are doing “fact-checking” in LW style, you are mostly accusing him of getting things wrong about which he never cared in the first place.
Like when Eliezer is using phlogiston as an example in the Sequences and gets the historical facts wrong. But that doesn’t make Eliezer wrong in any meaningful sense, because that’s not what he was talking about.
There’s some basic courtesy in listening to someone’s message, not words.
Sorry, but I think that is a lame response. It really, really isn’t just lack of expertise—it’s a matter of Peterson’s abandonment of skepticism and scholarly integrity. I’m sorry, but you don’t need to be a historian to tell that the ancient Egyptians didn’t know about the structure of DNA. You don’t need to be a statistician to know that coincidences don’t disprove scientific materialism. Peterson is a PhD who know the level of due diligence needed to publish in peer reviewed journals from experience. He knows better but did it anyway.
He cares enough to tell his students, explicitly, that he “really does believe” that ancient art depicts DNA—repeatedly! - and put it in public youtube videos with his real name and face.
It’s more like if Eliezer used the “ancient aliens built the pyramids” theory as an example in one of the sequences in a way that made it clear that he really does believe aliens built the pyramids. It’s stupid to believe it in the first place, and it’s stupid to use it as an example.
Then what makes Peterson so special? Why should I pay more attention to him than, say, Deepak Chopra? Or an Islamist Cleric? Or a postmodernist gender studies professor who thinks western science is just a tool of patriarchal oppression? Might they also have messages that are “metaphorically true” even though their words are actually bunk? If Peterson gets the benefit of the doubt when he says stupid things, why shouldn’t everybody else? If uses enough mental gymnastics, almost anything can be made to be “metaphorically true”.
Peterson’s fans are too emotionally invested in him to really consider what he’s saying rationally—akin to religious believers. Yes, he gives his audience motivation and meaning—much in the same way religion does for other demographics- but that can be a very powerful emotional blinder. If you really think that something gives your life meaning and motivation, you’ll overlook its flaws, even when it means weakening your epistemology.
It’s not surprising when religious believers to retreat to the claim that their holy texts are “metaphorically true” when they’re confronted with the evidence that their text is literally false—but it’s embarrassing to see a supposed rationalist do the same when someone criticizes their favorite guru. We’re supposed to know better.
This is what the whole discussion is about. You are setting boundaries that are convenient for you, and refuse to think further. But some people in that reference class you are now denigrating as a whole are different from others. Some actually know their stuff and are not charlatans. Throwing a tantrum about it doesn’t change it.
Then what the heck do you mean by “equal in truth-seeking ability”?
(I upvoted that comment, but:) Truth-seeking is more than avoiding bias, just as typing is more than not hitting the wrong keys and drawing is more than not making your lines crooked when you want them straight.
Someone might have deep insight into human nature; or outstanding skill in finding mathematical proofs; or a mind exceptionally fertile in generating new ideas, some of which turn out to be right; or an encyclopaedic knowledge of certain fields. Any of those would enhance their truth-seeking ability considerably. If they happen not to be particularly good at avoiding bias, that will worsen their truth-seeking ability. But they might still be better overall than someone with exceptional ability to avoid bias but without their particular skills.