Factchecking Jordan Peterson's Conversation with Richard Dawkins

Summary

In a critical analysis of a conversation with Jordan Peterson, the speaker expresses disappointment with Peterson's tendency to stray off-topic and deliver vague statements that lack depth. They suggest that his popularity may stem from listeners projecting their own biases onto his pseudo-profound remarks, which are given undue authority due to his credentials. Echoing Richard Dawkins's frustration, the speaker questions the justification for Peterson's commercial success and the vast sales of his books, ultimately conveying a sense of exasperation regarding the perceived lack of substantial insight in his thinking.

Takeaways

• 😀 Peterson critiques the effectiveness of implicit bias training, claiming a lack of evidence for its impact.
• 🤔 Grimes counters Peterson's assertion about the funding of federal student aid, suggesting that the claim is exaggerated.
• 🧠 Peterson discusses the necessity for organisms to model their environment, but Grimes finds this assertion vague.
• 📖 The conversation touches on kenosis, with Grimes arguing that Peterson's use of theological concepts lacks logical coherence.
• 📊 Peterson's claim about lower resolution images providing unbiased samples is challenged by Grimes, who highlights potential biases.
• 🦚 Peterson links female sexual selection to archetypal ideals, while Grimes disputes this understanding of evolutionary biology.
• 🌳 The discussion on shared cultural symbols, like trees and serpents, leads Grimes to argue that these can arise independently.
• 🌌 Peterson shares personal experiences with psychedelics, suggesting they lead to profound insights, but Dawkins cautions against overinterpretation.
• 🔍 Grimes acknowledges the issue of spurious correlations in research, yet argues it doesn’t justify misapplications of scientific principles.
• 😩 Grimes expresses frustration with the conversation's lack of structure and depth, echoing Dawkins’ exasperation throughout.

Q & A

What is the main critique of Jordan Peterson's speaking style?

The main critique is that Peterson tends to be vague and jumps from topic to topic, making his arguments difficult to follow and often lacking depth.

How does David Robert Grimes perceive the appeal of Peterson's ideas?

Grimes suggests that Peterson's ideas are appealing because they are vague enough for individuals to project their own biases onto them, which makes them feel more profound than they actually are.

What specific claim about mandatory racial sensitivity training does Peterson make?

Peterson claims that mandatory racial sensitivity training is ineffective, but Grimes points out that the scientific literature on this issue is mixed, indicating that the effectiveness is not fully understood.

What does Grimes say about Peterson's assertion regarding university funding?

Grimes finds Peterson's assertion that 70 cents of every dollar from student aid goes to administrators to be exaggerated, lacking substantial evidence.

What confusion does Grimes express regarding Peterson's comments on models and reality?

Grimes is confused by Peterson's claim that models need to represent reality accurately, particularly in relation to the Christian concept of kenosis, which he finds to be illogical.

How does Grimes critique Peterson's views on sexual selection?

Grimes critiques Peterson's views as misunderstandings of evolutionary biology, emphasizing that evolution is driven by survival rather than an ideal of sexual selection.

What does Grimes say about Peterson's interpretation of cultural symbols?

Grimes argues that Peterson's connections between cultural symbols like the Yggdrasil tree and mythological imagery reflect common human themes rather than indicating deeper, mystical insights.

What shared sentiment do Grimes and Dawkins express regarding Peterson's ideas?

Both Grimes and Dawkins express frustration and exasperation with the lack of depth in Peterson's thinking, questioning the justification for his popularity.

What does Grimes mean by describing Peterson's arguments as 'pseudo-profound'?

By calling Peterson's arguments 'pseudo-profound', Grimes suggests that they sound deep and meaningful at first glance but lack substantive insight and rigor upon closer examination.

What overall conclusion does Grimes reach about Peterson's influence?

Grimes concludes that Peterson's arguments often lack clarity and depth, leading him to doubt the validity of Peterson's influence and the rationale behind his widespread acclaim.