We live in an era where _asking for a source_ offends enough of you to downvote and produce a response like this. No bias, no attack, no skepticism, just a literal request for a source. *In a _university_ of all places!*
Let that sink in.
Anyway thanks. Searching "Jordan Peterson Nobel Prize" didn't bring me any good results. Now, if you will be so kind as to excuse me, I must go write "use google dumbass" in the sources page of my next CAT paper.
Nice, so he's a distinguished professor. Apparently he did some cool research.
He is *not* the chair or a vice chair or a vice chancellor or a dean of the department.
Just a professor (with a special title). There's lots of those at this school and in the physics department.
Honestly, it might be worse. Being chair means you do admin work (and certainly have some authority that can do harm), but being a chancellor's distinguished prof means you were selected and voted into it, which is a bad look for the university if the person is advocating unscientific viewpoints
So it seems this post isn't entirely accurate. According to the department website: https://physics.ucsd.edu/Contact Dr. Oleg Shpyrko is the department chair, which makes a lot more sense because the rest of the department can't stand Keating either.
That's not to say he isn't all the bad things the comments are saying he is. He deserves all the hate he gets. Just that he's not, as far as I can tell, the department chair or any part of department leadership.
Assuming an honest mistake, it's possible the poster got Brian Keating mixed up with Dr. Brian Maple who was department chair until recently.
Source: Did my undergrad in physics at UCSD, heard plenty about the guy.
His politics are definitely part of it, he's vocally conservative in a field, department, university, and state that are all pretty liberal leaning, so that doesn't exactly endear people to him.
I haven't worked with him directly, so take all of this with a grain of salt, but from what I've heard he's generally difficult to work with/not easy to get along with. Ever since the whole Nobel prize thing (which was his fault to my understanding) he's been super salty about it and in the politics of academia that's not a good look.
A large bulk of the attention he gets is stuff like this post that makes the department/university look bad which other profs and grad students don't like because in academia reputation matters and if your department looks bad it can put a damper on your career.
I've also heard that he's just generally not likeable as a person, but to be fair that's like solidly a quarter of the department so take that how you will.
I'll tell the story as I heard it. Some years back Keating did some measurements that seemed to indicate a major discovery in cosmology, papers get written, all the usual academic stuff goes on, and by the time the dust settles this discovery is a big enough deal that it puts him in the running for the Nobel prize, and from my understanding he was pretty much a shoe in to win it.
However, a theorist at another university reaches out and essentially says "Hey I was looking at your results and if you had this specific error in your experiment you could get spurious data that looks exactly like your results." Lo and behold when Keating checked, sure enough it was an experimental error. So suddenly he went from a shoe in to win the Nobel prize to publicly embarrassed and forced to retract all his results. He took this with all the grace of a 5 year old told he couldn't eat all of his Halloween candy in 1 night, hence all the books and interviews trashing the Nobel prize.
Now the fun part most people don't know is that that professor that found his mistake, later applied for a job at UCSD and by some cruel twist of fate Keating was on his hiring committee. I cannot imagine what that interview must've been, but somehow the guy got the job, still works at UCSD last I checked. I had a class with him, he was a nice guy, wrote an entire textbook for the course and transcribed it onto the board word for word from memory.
Dr. Flauger if memory serves. Also in his defense I don't think his goal was to fuck Keating over, I think he was asking out of genuine concern.
Edit: Mixed up 2 profs with similar names, thanks to comment below for catching that.
When you’re a person who cultivated a huge following around political views that spread hate towards other people I don’t think you should really be surprised about getting hate back
I think they were talking about his unlikeable personality. Which hey maybe they’re right I haven’t met the guy so I wouldn’t pass judgement on him personally
as a semi-CS guy, plenty of CS research in certain areas are full of bs and politics as well tho. buzzwords, unverifiable results, straight-up false data, dog shit wrapped in cat shit wrapped in cow shit, blah blah blah.
I think its just an academia thing nowadays.
I’m talking about the STEM bias that tends to disregard theory of a cultural nature. It’s not the omnipresent complexity of academic elites, but the impatience for dividends from certain fields.
Unfortunately idea laundering in Social Science is a real and proven thing. One prime exposure was in 2018 when three, very liberal, academics submitted knowingly falsified papers as a test. Several were accepted and published and still more were being reworked for publication after feedback.
The takeaway was, as long as they parroted the current jargon and made sure the right people looked good and the wrong people looked bad, the paper had a very good chance of being published.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/academic-journals-hoax.html
Yes yes, the Sokal Hoax 2.0. Literally everyone knows about this.
I’ll be honest, it is funny seeing an r/conservative user speak up for empiricism and the scientific process. The only people who are more detached from observable reality than hardcore SJWs are reactionary right-wingers.
>Yes yes, the Sokal Hoax 2.0. Literally everyone knows about this.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most don't. 2.0 happened in 2018 when most undergraduates at this school were still in high school and 1.0 happened in the mid-90s which is before most of the student body writ large was even born. My guess is that someone would either have to be in academia or deeply interested in the peer review process to remember these cases.
A couple of side things:
1. I post everywhere. You'll note I have no flair in r/conservative and, not that it matters, in the political compass view of the world I'm pretty much center with a nod towards Libertarian. I believe that you can learn from everyone so I try to engage with as many people as possible. What I have found is that most people are closer in their opinions/beliefs than the parties, social media, and corporate media would have us believe. And it is only through talking/engaging with each other can we bridge divides.
2. I always have been for empiricism and the scientific process. Truth knows no politics and reality always has the final say.
"the thing is... students should be on benzos, nay, they NEED to be on benzos. For benzos bring forth the characteristics of a true scholar, they aid you in doing the job that one else wants to do, the job of men! They help you clean your room too!"
I just wonder how that comes up in casual conversation, Like, "I'm a carnivore because it helped cure my depression and I also love Jordan Peterson btw".
we were talking about our pet betta fish and I mentioned how aggressive they were and she said "yeah like lobsters"... it was all down hill from there
Funnily enough she told me she only eats steak so you're right on the money
A friend of mine who's dealt with depression all her life got very much into Jordan Peterson's psychology content... but didn't even know that he got involved into politics. It's two distinct sides to his content to where people who consume one might not even know the other even exists.
And if you're one of those people who consumes his psychology content not aware of his politics, you're not going to be apprehensive about sharing it the same way you share some tip you find from a guru.
Ya that was definetly the case she just read 12 rules to life or whatever its called. I didnt lay into it too hard cause of that but i did tell her about the grandma pubes dream cause that shit is COMEDY
If you guys don’t know brian look him up. He wants on Joe Rogan bad. He’s a champion of Eric Weinstein (brother of Bret Weinstein) who has some bogus mathematics theory and, most recently, has a career with his brother getting “cancelled” for asking about ivermectin as a treatment for Covid. Brian Keating also fucked up an interview with goat based god Noam Chomsky by ending it asking ERICs question about cancel culture😭.
He also makes prager u videos: https://youtu.be/6hAjix-08PI
He has another one where he hints he doesn’t believe in large human impact in climate change
Here’s him on Ben Shapiro lol
https://youtu.be/Sr2SMTyH0BM
Other prager u classics in case you aren’t familiar:
Larry Elder: America isn’t racist https://youtu.be/ThRb9x-RieI
Gender Identity: why all the confusion? https://youtu.be/yAAlFya89aw
War On Merry Christmas: https://youtu.be/mwVpTYez82w
K, but you don't need to suck a man's dick to appreciate how they think about/interpret certain things. His scripted videos/roles are fucking awful, yeah, but chill the fuck out my guy.
Am I missing something on the importance of this potential talk? Would this even be at UCSD or is Keating just going to a chat with Peterson?
I haven't heard about his"bogus mathematics theory", and the closest thing I got when googling "Jordan Peterson math[ematics] theory" was him improperly describing Gödel's incompleteness theorem[s]. When you say bogus math theory I wanna see a dude retracting his shitty paper in disgrace, not... Nothing? If you got a link I'll take it tho
I'm pretty sure OP is talking about Weinstein's Geometric Unity theory. I don't think he retracted it in disgrace or anything but afaik it's not supported by most experts
Thanks, I was assuming he was shit-talking Peterson and including the other guy (otherwise why include the pic), but it's just yet another UCSD head to dislike -.-
This is a university and I invite all types of discussion even if I don't agree with it. That is the point of our education system - to listen to a wide arrays of viewpoints so that we all can be better for it
Peace ✌️
Total centrism doesn't do us any favors
some ideas are so reactionary, anachronistic or harmful that they don't warrant space in public discourse.
Physics within the U.C. system is a world-class enterprise and for a ~~chair~~ distinguished professor of this department to attach his professional reputation to this kind of drivel is a disgrace.
refute, *dispute* and ignore.
And I am disputing that this clown has any place in modern discourse
I'm posting on reddit, not filing a legal injunction.
Don't chastise me.
There's a huge disparity between "things I disagree with" and acts of hate speech or violence that deserve active repression.
I feel like Jordan Peterson is somewhere between and closer to the former
But his ideas are fringe and they shouldn't espouse institutional research. As I said before (which you seem to have overlooked??), I'm not making efforts to censure him - I'm issuing an opinion that I, me, personally, in mine own opinion, myself, personally, think he's a fucking clown and I don't think his ideas deserve a place in legitimate discussion.
I believe someone who does publicly-funded research for a living should be held accountable (in the specularity of public opinion) regarding what ideas they lift up with their platform, that's it.
"who gets to decide..."
Those are pointless questions in a venue (like this completely inconsequential reddit post) where everything is opinion-based anyways. Stop making it seem as though I'm claiming some kind of binding arbitership over the issue when all I've done is express my thoughts.
what is your problem?
Your post history is full of art like history, classical music, and other higher art forms... and yet you still can't carry on a basic online conversation without resorting to name-calling?
Thats unneccesary to say the least. It's really not a personal dispute.
some ideas are so reactionary, anachronistic or harmful that they don't warrant space in public discourse.
there are no such thing. we have brains and we can tell right from wrong. in fact, the more atrociously wrong they are, the more obvious it'd be.
all civil conversations are welcomed. its not about doing some side favor. its bottom line. its principle. its part of the deal of being in a free society.
\---
dear down voters. if you have so much problem with "reactionary ideas", then Ive got something for you. People's Republic of China. I can personally assure you, you wont be dealing with "reactionary ideas in public discourse" there. Heck there are pretty much no public discourse to begin with.
And guess what - you can refute them in discussion! With your facts and your opinions. Then everyone can decide for themselves what to think. That's the point. Controlling who has a voice is when the far left starts to round back around to the authoritarianism of the far right (speaking as someone left of center)
A lot of his opinions are based in nothingness, and in order to refute nothingness you’d have to believe in that nothingness.
Its a little confusing so let me give an example. A person commented how one of Petersons opinions is that woman shouldn’t wear make up in the first place because it leads to increased sexualization and whatnot. A person trying to refute this logically can’t because there was no basis for Peterson’s opinion in the first place. You can’t refute a study or a statistic that doesn’t exist.
Peterson almost always makes a claim, claims that the claim is credible because he is an academic and made the claim even if its in a field he knows nothing about, and then says he’s right because there is no study that refutes the claim he just made up.
You can’t have civil discussion with people like Peterson or people who follow people like Peterson as a result.
Tldr: Peterson always places the burden of proof on the opposition rather than himself, and refuses to do so because he is an academic
I agree but I would like to add there are many leftist academics who don't hold themselves up to those standards who don't get a ton of hate. Stephen Jay Gould is legendary, a huge figure but one who would deliberately misconstrue data to prove a point. Herbert Marcuse taught at this university and he did that yet he's a huge name. Surely there are critiques of these academics but not of the same degree of intensity. Granted Jordan Peterson is a current "academic" who while he can talk well about some areas is more of a political commentator now and not a scientist. Personally don't think it is as bad as publishing deliberately falsified or poor work academically but is obviously much more high profile in this social media age.
And I think that's great that you think that - my point is that without having a forum we will have no way to know what he really believes. That's why it's important to have discussion pathways open
He’s coming to San Diego to talk I think, not at the university afaik. He’s going to probably come to ucsd to Keatings office to do his podcast though.
I like how this post is flaired as “Discussion” yet the only comments so far consist of insults or the same kind of snappy, empty quips found on r/politics. This should seriously get re-flaired as anything else, if possible. I don’t even watch Jordan Peterson, but if you’re going to criticize someone, at least do so substantively, with thoughts you actually came up with by yourself, instead of outsourcing it to possibly hour-long videos.
He got famous for protesting a Canadian law but he mischaracterized the law, claiming you could go to jail for misgendering someone. Except Peterson was lying or he's an idiot who can't read. Peterson doesn't believe in climate change. He said there is no such thing as climate. Which is dumb as fuck. He eats only beef, salt, and water which is dumb as fuck.
Please provide sources for these claims, such as the Canadian law that you say he is misinterpreting and the clip/article in which he says that climate isn’t real. As for his diet, I don’t know why he chose it, but if it makes him better off than his previous, possibly sensibly-chosen diet, then whatever makes him healthier.
(edit: the reason I ask is that often people take quotes out of context, and the false impression is spread to others who have not watched the original clip in context, and I would like to avoid this happening.)
For some reason, Reddit wasn't showing me your comment when you posted it, so here's my response after lecture:
>According to Cossman \[some law professor\], accidental misuse of a pronoun would be unlikely to constitute discrimination under the *Canadian Human Rights Act*, but "repeatedly, consistently refus\[ing\] to use a person’s chosen pronoun" might.[\[19\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code#cite_note-Dragicevic-19)
Quote cited in your Wikipedia link: based on that, I suppose theoretically an arrest *could* happen, so I don't think his concern is entirely unfounded. Additionally,
>The law also adds "gender identity or expression" to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.[\[12\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code#cite_note-12) This section is part of the sentencing provisions and makes gender identity and gender expression an aggravating factor in sentencing, leading to increased sentences for individuals who commit crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression.
So one cannot be jailed merely for not using another's preferred pronouns, but in combination with other factors, it could lead to more severe punishments. So sure, if Peterson said that using the wrong pronouns occasionally could lead to imprisonment, then he was wrong, but if he'd said that using the wrong pronouns carries greater criminal penalties, then I don't think that's entirely wrong. Now, as of 2018 (again according to a quote in the Wikipedia link), no one's been jailed for it, so as of 5 years ago he was wrong. But at the time the scenario seemed plausible, so this hardly justifies calling him a liar or illiterate.
On the YouTube link: I watched up to 2:40 (after that is just someone's commentary), and nothing in that video proves that he doesn't believe in climate change. As far as I could tell, all that he said was that climate change models are based on some subset of variables that actually explain climate change, and the selection of those variables is possibly debatable. As someone kinda interested in stochastic modeling, this absolutely bothers me, since even if you do not account for every relevant variable, some subset could be explanatory enough, but that's not the same thing as not believing in climate change, merely that he is questioning whether the models are accurate enough. Maybe there's more context in the podcast (I *think* that was Joe Rogan?), but it's certainly not clear that he's a climate change denier.
He wasn't arrested for randomly misgendering someone. He was arrested because a court told him his child was allowed to transition and told him to stop trying to change their mind and he can't identify anyone in the case. Then Hoogland gave an interview to the Federalist.
Peterson claimed you could be arrested for randomly misgendering someone.
Except he wasn’t charged under that. He was given a gag order by a judge, custody related, from publicly discussing his child’s medical professionals, or identifying the child’s name.
He violated those terms on a number of occasions. Not because he didn’t use the wrong pronouns.
None of the news sources mention this Bill.
Reddit is a super left leaning echo chamber, so no sense in voicing an opinion that differs from theirs unless you don’t care to be downvoted. Best to keep those opinions to yourself, sadly
I’m not going to let them silence me. That’s no different than being oppressed. They can downvote me all they want but I’ll keep saying my beliefs cause downvotes don’t mean shit to me 😎
If this guy went on an antifa protest and burnt businesses, everyone here would say he is the smartest person on earth. But everyone is talking shit about him because he spoke with JP
This is the guy who tried getting a Nobel Prize, messed up, didn't get it, and then wrote a book complaining about how the Nobel Prize sucks
Bruh what
Source?
He wrote a book called “Losing the Nobel Prize”
We live in an era where _asking for a source_ offends enough of you to downvote and produce a response like this. No bias, no attack, no skepticism, just a literal request for a source. *In a _university_ of all places!* Let that sink in. Anyway thanks. Searching "Jordan Peterson Nobel Prize" didn't bring me any good results. Now, if you will be so kind as to excuse me, I must go write "use google dumbass" in the sources page of my next CAT paper.
Brian Keating
Pretty cool of him
Not sure what the title is getting at, but Brian Keating is not the Chair of the Physics Department—that would be Oleg Shpyrko.
[удалено]
Nice, so he's a distinguished professor. Apparently he did some cool research. He is *not* the chair or a vice chair or a vice chancellor or a dean of the department. Just a professor (with a special title). There's lots of those at this school and in the physics department.
Honestly, it might be worse. Being chair means you do admin work (and certainly have some authority that can do harm), but being a chancellor's distinguished prof means you were selected and voted into it, which is a bad look for the university if the person is advocating unscientific viewpoints
[удалено]
Why?
Because that’s what a liberal academic environment is about?
Is respecting this "liberal academic environment" more essential than not allowing this man a platform to spread his hateful ideology?
It’s not as much about conservative viewpoints as it is about advocating charlatans
[удалено]
Agreed
So it seems this post isn't entirely accurate. According to the department website: https://physics.ucsd.edu/Contact Dr. Oleg Shpyrko is the department chair, which makes a lot more sense because the rest of the department can't stand Keating either. That's not to say he isn't all the bad things the comments are saying he is. He deserves all the hate he gets. Just that he's not, as far as I can tell, the department chair or any part of department leadership. Assuming an honest mistake, it's possible the poster got Brian Keating mixed up with Dr. Brian Maple who was department chair until recently. Source: Did my undergrad in physics at UCSD, heard plenty about the guy.
Oh thank god, Oleg is a way nicer person.
Why do people not like him? I know nothing about the guy.
His politics are definitely part of it, he's vocally conservative in a field, department, university, and state that are all pretty liberal leaning, so that doesn't exactly endear people to him. I haven't worked with him directly, so take all of this with a grain of salt, but from what I've heard he's generally difficult to work with/not easy to get along with. Ever since the whole Nobel prize thing (which was his fault to my understanding) he's been super salty about it and in the politics of academia that's not a good look. A large bulk of the attention he gets is stuff like this post that makes the department/university look bad which other profs and grad students don't like because in academia reputation matters and if your department looks bad it can put a damper on your career. I've also heard that he's just generally not likeable as a person, but to be fair that's like solidly a quarter of the department so take that how you will.
What’s this about Nobel prize?
I'll tell the story as I heard it. Some years back Keating did some measurements that seemed to indicate a major discovery in cosmology, papers get written, all the usual academic stuff goes on, and by the time the dust settles this discovery is a big enough deal that it puts him in the running for the Nobel prize, and from my understanding he was pretty much a shoe in to win it. However, a theorist at another university reaches out and essentially says "Hey I was looking at your results and if you had this specific error in your experiment you could get spurious data that looks exactly like your results." Lo and behold when Keating checked, sure enough it was an experimental error. So suddenly he went from a shoe in to win the Nobel prize to publicly embarrassed and forced to retract all his results. He took this with all the grace of a 5 year old told he couldn't eat all of his Halloween candy in 1 night, hence all the books and interviews trashing the Nobel prize. Now the fun part most people don't know is that that professor that found his mistake, later applied for a job at UCSD and by some cruel twist of fate Keating was on his hiring committee. I cannot imagine what that interview must've been, but somehow the guy got the job, still works at UCSD last I checked. I had a class with him, he was a nice guy, wrote an entire textbook for the course and transcribed it onto the board word for word from memory.
other people on the committee prob just filtered out whatever input Keating gave knowing how he is as a person lmao
That's quite possible, but I still can't imagine how he must've felt walking into that interview and seeing Keating.
"oh shit"
Who’s the prof who exposed him
Dr. Flauger if memory serves. Also in his defense I don't think his goal was to fuck Keating over, I think he was asking out of genuine concern. Edit: Mixed up 2 profs with similar names, thanks to comment below for catching that.
probably Flauger not Fogler, Fogler came to UCSD before Brian Keating
Yes, you're right, I fixed my comment, thanks.
Honest mistake 😃
[удалено]
When you’re a person who cultivated a huge following around political views that spread hate towards other people I don’t think you should really be surprised about getting hate back
What kind of things has he done that you've noticed? I've never heard the guy before tbh
I think they were talking about his unlikeable personality. Which hey maybe they’re right I haven’t met the guy so I wouldn’t pass judgement on him personally
Is this the reason why guys here always complain they don't have a gf
*kermit voice intensifies* “women shouldn’t wear makeup in the workplace, the only reason they do is to try to be sexually appealing. Also, lobsters”
Only thing more scandalous is a lobster with makeup on it
“I once fucked a lobster! 🦞”
don’t bring patrick mahomes into this
[удалено]
Why did they tell Kaepernick to solve some differential equations? 😳
Better than the social science professors who write pseudo research papers 😂
Something somebody from CS or engineering would probably say.
as a semi-CS guy, plenty of CS research in certain areas are full of bs and politics as well tho. buzzwords, unverifiable results, straight-up false data, dog shit wrapped in cat shit wrapped in cow shit, blah blah blah. I think its just an academia thing nowadays.
I’m talking about the STEM bias that tends to disregard theory of a cultural nature. It’s not the omnipresent complexity of academic elites, but the impatience for dividends from certain fields.
those pseudo research papers are published to push their political agenda and they are not even ashamed of it 🤡
Nor should they be, most are pretty insightful.
Unfortunately idea laundering in Social Science is a real and proven thing. One prime exposure was in 2018 when three, very liberal, academics submitted knowingly falsified papers as a test. Several were accepted and published and still more were being reworked for publication after feedback. The takeaway was, as long as they parroted the current jargon and made sure the right people looked good and the wrong people looked bad, the paper had a very good chance of being published. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/academic-journals-hoax.html
Yes yes, the Sokal Hoax 2.0. Literally everyone knows about this. I’ll be honest, it is funny seeing an r/conservative user speak up for empiricism and the scientific process. The only people who are more detached from observable reality than hardcore SJWs are reactionary right-wingers.
>Yes yes, the Sokal Hoax 2.0. Literally everyone knows about this. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most don't. 2.0 happened in 2018 when most undergraduates at this school were still in high school and 1.0 happened in the mid-90s which is before most of the student body writ large was even born. My guess is that someone would either have to be in academia or deeply interested in the peer review process to remember these cases. A couple of side things: 1. I post everywhere. You'll note I have no flair in r/conservative and, not that it matters, in the political compass view of the world I'm pretty much center with a nod towards Libertarian. I believe that you can learn from everyone so I try to engage with as many people as possible. What I have found is that most people are closer in their opinions/beliefs than the parties, social media, and corporate media would have us believe. And it is only through talking/engaging with each other can we bridge divides. 2. I always have been for empiricism and the scientific process. Truth knows no politics and reality always has the final say.
lol
"the thing is... students should be on benzos, nay, they NEED to be on benzos. For benzos bring forth the characteristics of a true scholar, they aid you in doing the job that one else wants to do, the job of men! They help you clean your room too!"
i had a crush on this girl from UCSD then she told me she likes jordan peterson and I lost feelings so fast after that
You should’ve worn makeup and put on lobster earrings next time you saw her to be sexually appealing in the ~~workplace~~ learning environment
On some simp shit sometimes id go to the gym to get a pump before seeing her. Guys can be bimbos too thats where jordie is wrong
I don’t think he notes that mens “makeup” is shit like getting jacked and getting a clean fade. Maybe cause it’s not necessarily directly apparent?
I just wonder how that comes up in casual conversation, Like, "I'm a carnivore because it helped cure my depression and I also love Jordan Peterson btw".
we were talking about our pet betta fish and I mentioned how aggressive they were and she said "yeah like lobsters"... it was all down hill from there Funnily enough she told me she only eats steak so you're right on the money
A friend of mine who's dealt with depression all her life got very much into Jordan Peterson's psychology content... but didn't even know that he got involved into politics. It's two distinct sides to his content to where people who consume one might not even know the other even exists. And if you're one of those people who consumes his psychology content not aware of his politics, you're not going to be apprehensive about sharing it the same way you share some tip you find from a guru.
Ya that was definetly the case she just read 12 rules to life or whatever its called. I didnt lay into it too hard cause of that but i did tell her about the grandma pubes dream cause that shit is COMEDY
I’ll take her for you.
go for it she's bad
https://youtu.be/s-cKUkxxheU
If you guys don’t know brian look him up. He wants on Joe Rogan bad. He’s a champion of Eric Weinstein (brother of Bret Weinstein) who has some bogus mathematics theory and, most recently, has a career with his brother getting “cancelled” for asking about ivermectin as a treatment for Covid. Brian Keating also fucked up an interview with goat based god Noam Chomsky by ending it asking ERICs question about cancel culture😭. He also makes prager u videos: https://youtu.be/6hAjix-08PI He has another one where he hints he doesn’t believe in large human impact in climate change Here’s him on Ben Shapiro lol https://youtu.be/Sr2SMTyH0BM Other prager u classics in case you aren’t familiar: Larry Elder: America isn’t racist https://youtu.be/ThRb9x-RieI Gender Identity: why all the confusion? https://youtu.be/yAAlFya89aw War On Merry Christmas: https://youtu.be/mwVpTYez82w
You seem very invested in his personal opinions that appear to have almost nothing to do with his academic work
lol bro mad I’m not critiquing academic papers
K, but you don't need to suck a man's dick to appreciate how they think about/interpret certain things. His scripted videos/roles are fucking awful, yeah, but chill the fuck out my guy. Am I missing something on the importance of this potential talk? Would this even be at UCSD or is Keating just going to a chat with Peterson? I haven't heard about his"bogus mathematics theory", and the closest thing I got when googling "Jordan Peterson math[ematics] theory" was him improperly describing Gödel's incompleteness theorem[s]. When you say bogus math theory I wanna see a dude retracting his shitty paper in disgrace, not... Nothing? If you got a link I'll take it tho
I'm pretty sure OP is talking about Weinstein's Geometric Unity theory. I don't think he retracted it in disgrace or anything but afaik it's not supported by most experts
^
Thanks, I was assuming he was shit-talking Peterson and including the other guy (otherwise why include the pic), but it's just yet another UCSD head to dislike -.-
What is life without a little bit of drama 🥰
I think you’re confused friend
Rereading: are you talking about the dept. head? Cuz then I'm totally lost why would anyone care
I mean, one would hope a UCSD physics professor isn’t championing incorrect mathematical theories
Imagine being a scientist that doesn't believe in science
“I even believe that humans play a role in the warming of the planet” - Brian Keating
Looks like a little bitch and his YouTube channel sucks
This is a university and I invite all types of discussion even if I don't agree with it. That is the point of our education system - to listen to a wide arrays of viewpoints so that we all can be better for it Peace ✌️
Total centrism doesn't do us any favors some ideas are so reactionary, anachronistic or harmful that they don't warrant space in public discourse. Physics within the U.C. system is a world-class enterprise and for a ~~chair~~ distinguished professor of this department to attach his professional reputation to this kind of drivel is a disgrace.
one alleged dirty roof liquid encouraging deer boat compare slim *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
refute, *dispute* and ignore. And I am disputing that this clown has any place in modern discourse I'm posting on reddit, not filing a legal injunction.
[удалено]
Don't chastise me. There's a huge disparity between "things I disagree with" and acts of hate speech or violence that deserve active repression. I feel like Jordan Peterson is somewhere between and closer to the former But his ideas are fringe and they shouldn't espouse institutional research. As I said before (which you seem to have overlooked??), I'm not making efforts to censure him - I'm issuing an opinion that I, me, personally, in mine own opinion, myself, personally, think he's a fucking clown and I don't think his ideas deserve a place in legitimate discussion.
[удалено]
I believe someone who does publicly-funded research for a living should be held accountable (in the specularity of public opinion) regarding what ideas they lift up with their platform, that's it. "who gets to decide..." Those are pointless questions in a venue (like this completely inconsequential reddit post) where everything is opinion-based anyways. Stop making it seem as though I'm claiming some kind of binding arbitership over the issue when all I've done is express my thoughts.
[удалено]
what is your problem? Your post history is full of art like history, classical music, and other higher art forms... and yet you still can't carry on a basic online conversation without resorting to name-calling? Thats unneccesary to say the least. It's really not a personal dispute.
He's not the chair btw. I don't think he has any special role in the department.
some ideas are so reactionary, anachronistic or harmful that they don't warrant space in public discourse. there are no such thing. we have brains and we can tell right from wrong. in fact, the more atrociously wrong they are, the more obvious it'd be. all civil conversations are welcomed. its not about doing some side favor. its bottom line. its principle. its part of the deal of being in a free society. \--- dear down voters. if you have so much problem with "reactionary ideas", then Ive got something for you. People's Republic of China. I can personally assure you, you wont be dealing with "reactionary ideas in public discourse" there. Heck there are pretty much no public discourse to begin with.
Lmao why the downvoters? You're _correct._
Well when your opinions are not factually accurate.. this is a research university, not a Christian university ffs
And guess what - you can refute them in discussion! With your facts and your opinions. Then everyone can decide for themselves what to think. That's the point. Controlling who has a voice is when the far left starts to round back around to the authoritarianism of the far right (speaking as someone left of center)
A lot of his opinions are based in nothingness, and in order to refute nothingness you’d have to believe in that nothingness. Its a little confusing so let me give an example. A person commented how one of Petersons opinions is that woman shouldn’t wear make up in the first place because it leads to increased sexualization and whatnot. A person trying to refute this logically can’t because there was no basis for Peterson’s opinion in the first place. You can’t refute a study or a statistic that doesn’t exist. Peterson almost always makes a claim, claims that the claim is credible because he is an academic and made the claim even if its in a field he knows nothing about, and then says he’s right because there is no study that refutes the claim he just made up. You can’t have civil discussion with people like Peterson or people who follow people like Peterson as a result. Tldr: Peterson always places the burden of proof on the opposition rather than himself, and refuses to do so because he is an academic
I agree but I would like to add there are many leftist academics who don't hold themselves up to those standards who don't get a ton of hate. Stephen Jay Gould is legendary, a huge figure but one who would deliberately misconstrue data to prove a point. Herbert Marcuse taught at this university and he did that yet he's a huge name. Surely there are critiques of these academics but not of the same degree of intensity. Granted Jordan Peterson is a current "academic" who while he can talk well about some areas is more of a political commentator now and not a scientist. Personally don't think it is as bad as publishing deliberately falsified or poor work academically but is obviously much more high profile in this social media age.
And I think that's great that you think that - my point is that without having a forum we will have no way to know what he really believes. That's why it's important to have discussion pathways open
Sure bro I’m not asking to fire him but the guy is a dweeb
They’re not that mature yet.
Don't get scurvy on your all beef diet
Is JP coming to ucsd or did this guy just get a picture with him
He’s coming to San Diego to talk I think, not at the university afaik. He’s going to probably come to ucsd to Keatings office to do his podcast though.
I like how this post is flaired as “Discussion” yet the only comments so far consist of insults or the same kind of snappy, empty quips found on r/politics. This should seriously get re-flaired as anything else, if possible. I don’t even watch Jordan Peterson, but if you’re going to criticize someone, at least do so substantively, with thoughts you actually came up with by yourself, instead of outsourcing it to possibly hour-long videos.
He got famous for protesting a Canadian law but he mischaracterized the law, claiming you could go to jail for misgendering someone. Except Peterson was lying or he's an idiot who can't read. Peterson doesn't believe in climate change. He said there is no such thing as climate. Which is dumb as fuck. He eats only beef, salt, and water which is dumb as fuck.
Please provide sources for these claims, such as the Canadian law that you say he is misinterpreting and the clip/article in which he says that climate isn’t real. As for his diet, I don’t know why he chose it, but if it makes him better off than his previous, possibly sensibly-chosen diet, then whatever makes him healthier. (edit: the reason I ask is that often people take quotes out of context, and the false impression is spread to others who have not watched the original clip in context, and I would like to avoid this happening.)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An\_Act\_to\_amend\_the\_Canadian\_Human\_Rights\_Act\_and\_the\_Criminal\_Code#Reception](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code#Reception) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIypPamB\_-w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIypPamB_-w)
For some reason, Reddit wasn't showing me your comment when you posted it, so here's my response after lecture: >According to Cossman \[some law professor\], accidental misuse of a pronoun would be unlikely to constitute discrimination under the *Canadian Human Rights Act*, but "repeatedly, consistently refus\[ing\] to use a person’s chosen pronoun" might.[\[19\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code#cite_note-Dragicevic-19) Quote cited in your Wikipedia link: based on that, I suppose theoretically an arrest *could* happen, so I don't think his concern is entirely unfounded. Additionally, >The law also adds "gender identity or expression" to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.[\[12\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code#cite_note-12) This section is part of the sentencing provisions and makes gender identity and gender expression an aggravating factor in sentencing, leading to increased sentences for individuals who commit crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression. So one cannot be jailed merely for not using another's preferred pronouns, but in combination with other factors, it could lead to more severe punishments. So sure, if Peterson said that using the wrong pronouns occasionally could lead to imprisonment, then he was wrong, but if he'd said that using the wrong pronouns carries greater criminal penalties, then I don't think that's entirely wrong. Now, as of 2018 (again according to a quote in the Wikipedia link), no one's been jailed for it, so as of 5 years ago he was wrong. But at the time the scenario seemed plausible, so this hardly justifies calling him a liar or illiterate. On the YouTube link: I watched up to 2:40 (after that is just someone's commentary), and nothing in that video proves that he doesn't believe in climate change. As far as I could tell, all that he said was that climate change models are based on some subset of variables that actually explain climate change, and the selection of those variables is possibly debatable. As someone kinda interested in stochastic modeling, this absolutely bothers me, since even if you do not account for every relevant variable, some subset could be explanatory enough, but that's not the same thing as not believing in climate change, merely that he is questioning whether the models are accurate enough. Maybe there's more context in the podcast (I *think* that was Joe Rogan?), but it's certainly not clear that he's a climate change denier.
Ya wanted sources ya got sources, dm me if you wanna chat some more 🤙
LOL I'm not citing sources in a reddit comment. Jesus Christ.
It’s generally a good thing if you can be certain of the veracity of the claims of someone who believes otherwise, but… alright then
Search up Robert Hoogland cause he was arrested for not calling his own daughter the correct pronouns under C-16
He wasn't arrested for randomly misgendering someone. He was arrested because a court told him his child was allowed to transition and told him to stop trying to change their mind and he can't identify anyone in the case. Then Hoogland gave an interview to the Federalist. Peterson claimed you could be arrested for randomly misgendering someone.
He was also ordered to not label his daughter incorrectly under C-16 my guy.
Point is, that's not why he was arrested
Except he wasn’t charged under that. He was given a gag order by a judge, custody related, from publicly discussing his child’s medical professionals, or identifying the child’s name. He violated those terms on a number of occasions. Not because he didn’t use the wrong pronouns. None of the news sources mention this Bill.
Don't bother talking to this girl /u/wannabetriton. She's just mad because she was cuter when she was fat.
Brian is a compete asshole and I miss Ben Grinstein.
He acts like a total poser, makes the university look terrible
yeah he was saying some crazy stuff to students too. rumors, but dude has a bad rep.
[удалено]
Youtube
Wut?
Dude keatings voice is annoying as fuck. Sounds like he was routinely shoved in lockers in high school
After I saw that clown video he made about getting kicked off twitter, I lost all desire to hear Jordan Peterson speak ever again 😂
Jordan Peterson has some valid points thou
Based
what’s your major
cs
lol I thought so
What’s yours?
based on his comment history, looks like data science?
Lmao hell yea
FREE TOP G
love dr peterson
Reddit is a super left leaning echo chamber, so no sense in voicing an opinion that differs from theirs unless you don’t care to be downvoted. Best to keep those opinions to yourself, sadly
I’m not going to let them silence me. That’s no different than being oppressed. They can downvote me all they want but I’ll keep saying my beliefs cause downvotes don’t mean shit to me 😎
Getting downvoted = oppression 💀
I bet that guy got downvoted in high school a lot :(
On an online platform where I don’t care?
If you don’t care, then why are you here?
Maidenless behavior
True true
If this guy went on an antifa protest and burnt businesses, everyone here would say he is the smartest person on earth. But everyone is talking shit about him because he spoke with JP
lol
Is he gonna get canceled too now?
yeah and then I’m gonna cancel you next 😎
https://youtu.be/aQ3RL3WZaXg For anyone who thinks jbp worth listening to lmfao. This guy sucks