Nola: maybe just maybe it's probably not junk psych if he's interested in it. Perhaps entertain the idea that you don't get it. Jake, too.
fwiw, I have no dog in the fight of determining either the scientific validity of (certain branches of) psychology or Peterson’s competence as a clinical psychologist. I don’t know dick about either. But, in Peterson’s project to construct a theory of everything, his work does impinge on some topics I do know dick about, like philosophy of science, philosophy of the social sciences, history of philosophy, and religious history. As mandarks pointed out, his claims/arguments/premises and especially his normative prescriptions -the whole reason why anyone is talking about him- can’t all be reduced to simple psychological work or a handful of psychological mechanisms/taxonomies, the big five or otherwise. What I’ve been trying to show, carefully and at length to you and anyone else who might care, are the metaphysical and epistemological commitments that Peterson depends on in order to arrive at truth claims like “conservatism insulates society in times of crisis” and “these particular protestors ought not to be protesting” and whether or not they can be reconciled with each other as Peterson’s explained them.
I was exchanging with jake until he revealed that his intent was not honest.
ive stated
from the first that I think Peterson’s project is riddled with inconsistencies, incoherences, and falsehoods to the point where it’s essentially bankrupt. This follows from the particular points I’ve brought up, mostly quotes/passages from his own hand, that are inconsistent, incoherent, or false. If you disagree with my take on these particulars, great, demonstrate that I’m wrong on them and we both benefit. If you don’t want to, that’s cool too, but you haven’t provided a reason beyond “he might be right” for me to reconsider my position.
As a show of good faith, I’ll restate the questions i posted earlier that started this whole excursion:
Granted the true and the good are determined by their being transmitted across generations through a natural selection process, doesn’t this mean man’s goal is mere self-perpetuation? If so, how’s is this any different from a naked will to power where might more or less makes right? And how does this help solve the anxiety caused by modernity?
What is his view, at bottom, of social reality and how does this inform how he derives his normative prescriptions?
How do we determine which stories/traditions are relevant for our own moral purposes and how do we mine them for moral content in a way that isn’t ad hoc?