Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I'm sure most have heard about this, but if not I'll give a brief summary:

Three academics conducted an experiment where they wrote fake papers on insane subjects and submitted them to prominent academic journals. For example one paper was about how dog humping at dog parks is evidence of rape culture. Another rewrote a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism. Some of these papers ended up being published.

Now some, especially the places that got duped, are more upset at the people who did the hoax than they are over their low standards.

So did these academics go too far in what they did? Or were they right to expose this?

They were right to expose them. The fact that any of those papers were published or even seriously considered for publishing shows the decay of standards and morals in parts of our academia.

No, and this type of quality control work should be done as part of a routine check.

Other disciplines are required to do Quality Assurance activities like this. So why not the Psychology space? It's rather ridiculous that they are not QA'd like this.

It is one of the biggest criticisms right now in this particular area of academia. Many studies cannot even be replicated.


https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/642218377/in-psychology-and-other-social-sciences-many-studies-fail-the-reproducibility-te


It is so bad that this is called the "replication crisis." There are far too many agendas and not enough actual science being done in psychology. This is a plague of the social sciences. Sucks. But it's time more rigor was brought into the social sciences.

Psychology has always been a shambles for its due diligence in publishing papers. A Mickey Mouse science for Mickey Mouse scientists. It's the predominant reason when I was studying that I moved undergraduate degrees from forensic psychobiology to forensic science.

Like I've said often, psychology is often questionable on many levels. Jaden is bang on the money. I studied Molecular Biology and then Genetics, facts and evidence are far more interesting than waffle.

They didn't Proof Read da shit before they posted it. Its all ON THEM!

Reminds me of this:
https://www.apnews.com/32a98e290c49d9efe147b52dbb784e88

I'm on the side of the academics. Stuff like this should've been quality/peer-reviewed before being published.

^ I could be wrong but I believe some of it actually was.

Originally posted by mike brown
^ I could be wrong but I believe some of it actually was. To be clear, I meant the academic papers should've been reviewed, not the Yearling manuscript -- though it would seem that one big house editor may never have even read the novel, let alone the disguised submission.

Apparently, this type of literary experiment has been done a few times:
http://ecclesiastes911.net/publishers_rejected_classics_in_disguise/

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm sure most have heard about this, but if not I'll give a brief summary:

Three academics conducted an experiment where they wrote fake papers on insane subjects and submitted them to prominent academic journals. For example one paper was about how dog humping at dog parks is evidence of rape culture. Another rewrote a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism. Some of these papers ended up being published.

Now some, especially the places that got duped, are more upset at the people who did the hoax than they are over their low standards.

So did these academics go too far in what they did? Or were they right to expose this?
From personal experience, I can tell you that publication process is both POLITICIZED and SUBJECTIVE to large extent.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I studied Molecular Biology and then Genetics,
Impressive.

My 'significant other' is also in this domain. Important field of study.

They were in the right.

It is also the reason why I think SJW's are particularly harmful. These idiotic, disprovable studies are published in academic journals, and given "credibility". When you see some idiot on TV quote a "study", ask for a reference, and source it yourself. You'll be surprised how often it leads to one of these.

Then they begin to influence public policy because people believe in academic journals. And studies that might go against the current narrative, even if they are better thought out, and more comprehensive, might be left on the drawing board because it doesn't fit the narrative.

I think it is a MASSIVE problem.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
They were in the right.

It is also the reason why I think SJW's are particularly harmful. These idiotic, disprovable studies are published in academic journals, and given "credibility". When you see some idiot on TV quote a "study", ask for a reference, and source it yourself. You'll be surprised how often it leads to one of these.

Then they begin to influence public policy because people believe in academic journals. And studies that might go against the current narrative, even if they are better thought out, and more comprehensive, might be left on the drawing board because it doesn't fit the narrative.

I think it is a MASSIVE problem. The same can be said for a lot of the "leaps" rightists make to try and use biology to justify psychology. It's often extremely questionable and usually based on the relatively debunked "pleasure" principle.

I'll give you a simple example of badly popularised Science, my old friend JP, why hasn't anyone told him Lobsters developed 350 million years ago, not humans diverged from them then. I suspect
although I've never looked it up humans diverged about a billion years ago from a common ancestor. The guy is a hack.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
The same can be said for a lot of the "leaps" rightists make to try and use biology to justify psychology. It's often extremely questionable and usually based on the relatively debunked "pleasure" principle.

Ok.

I think we can all agree that all pseudo-science is bad.

My issue with these type of studies is that well-meaning politicians, that try to be progressive, may base policy on junk.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
They were in the right.

It is also the reason why I think SJW's are particularly harmful. These idiotic, disprovable studies are published in academic journals, and given "credibility". When you see some idiot on TV quote a "study", ask for a reference, and source it yourself. You'll be surprised how often it leads to one of these.

Then they begin to influence public policy because people believe in academic journals. And studies that might go against the current narrative, even if they are better thought out, and more comprehensive, might be left on the drawing board because it doesn't fit the narrative.

I think it is a MASSIVE problem.
Spot on.

It's just that whenever I think about this story I think back to all the times I've read or listened to someone discussing a certain study or paper and saying it was "peer reviewed" in order to lend credibility to it.

I do not know enough about evolutionary biology to discuss the merits of Dr. Peterson's Lobster example.

Why is that relevant here however? How is it even remotely comparable in terms of the scale and potential damage that the ideology that is rampant in academia can do to society? One of the academics who was part of the Gender Grievance studies hoax, received a call from a U.N. Ambassador to advice on policy because of one his false papers because it aligned with a leftist narrative.

Really comprehend that for a minute. Take a step back, think about that for 40 seconds. That is utterly insane. Now imagine the sheer NUMBER of students being indoctrinated by these thoughts, and are sent into the world.

Can we stick to the topic at hand? This is the second time you have mentioned the Lobster thing. It has been acknowledged, but we want to discuss the topic at hand.

I think the idea that Dr. Peterson is worth mentioning compared to this is underestimating the scale of the issue. There are people, professional academics, who have no ability to think critically. They have been indoctrinated to a radical degree. Ideas that disagree with them, were forced to be edited by editors before it was published. Conclusions are FORMED. Any pseudo-research is used to fill in the gap. It is the opposite of science, and it is so widespread, it is legit a public crisis imho. We are raising an entire generation of academics incapable of confronting ideas they disagree with or dissecting arguments in a logical manner. I see this every day. Undergraduates who are incapable of holding an open conversation with any degree of aggression or conflict. They immediately fold. Children, in the bodies of young adults.

We will all be speaking Mandarin within 3 generations at this rate in the province of New Beijing. We're raising mentally stunted pussies with a shit work ethic. It's not all bad, but I can notice an OVERALL decrease in quality of freshmen. This is all anecdotal and could be utter bullshit so feel free to ignore. Maybe my experience with this year's undergraduates was just improbably poor. I don't have the data to give factual conclusions.

Everyone makes the retarded argument "ermagerd, lobsters diverged from us a long time ago, that makes it retarded" that's the point, the point is to show that it's not a cultural phenomenon, but a biological one so deep that it manifests across species as different as humans and lobsters.

And yes, Jordan Peterson does in the broad span of his work cite to creatures we are more closely related to, such as when referring to experiments on rats, or the social structures of other primates. He does mention them as well. Everyone just likes to hone in on the misconception that he only talks about the lobster.


It's also a complete mischaracterization of him to suggest that he's saying people shouldn't cooperate. Because he does mention closer relatives such as primates, and when discussing their social structures he mentions that things tend to not turn out so well for the alpha chimps that aren't cooperative or reciprocal in their relationship with the other chimps.

He has also stated that a reasonable political left-wing is a necessary part of political discourse, because in his view just as the existence of competence hierarchies is necessary in the pursuit of something of value which the right recognizes, the left is also necessary because people are also displaced and left at the bottom in unfortunate positions, and that it's not a good thing to have people stack up at the bottom in need because then they're suffering as individuals and it destabilizes society as a whole. He has actually praised some of the historic accomplishments of the political left in Canada such as workers protections, the Canadian healthcare system, etc. and think it's a good thing for part of the political system to advocate for the working class.

He also has said for people to adopt responsibility not just for selfish ambition but so they can be of use to the people around them. Something he said was that it's an admirable goal to be the kind of person the rest of your family can rely on at a funeral when a loved one dies. He argues that the point of personal responsibility isn't just so that you can take care of yourself but also your family and the broader community.


You seem to have this misguided understanding of Jordan Peterson's views that essentially amounts to a caricature. He's not some proponent of the idea that cooperation is bad and that it should just be every man for himself, and has said many such things to the contrary.

Originally posted by Mindship
To be clear, I meant the academic papers should've been reviewed, not the Yearling manuscript -- though it would seem that one big house editor may never have even read the novel, let alone the disguised submission.

Apparently, this type of literary experiment has been done a few times:
http://ecclesiastes911.net/publishers_rejected_classics_in_disguise/ See I don't know that much about it but I thought I saw him talking about the Mein Kampf paper going through the process of review and receiving comments etc

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Everyone makes the retarded argument "ermagerd, lobsters diverged from us a long time ago, that makes it retarded" that's the point, the point is to show that it's not a cultural phenomenon, but a biological one so deep that it manifests across species as different as humans and lobsters.

And yes, Jordan Peterson does in the broad span of his work cite to creatures we are more closely related to, such as when referring to experiments on rats, or the social structures of other primates. He does mention them as well. Everyone just likes to hone in on the misconception that he only talks about the lobster.


It's also a complete mischaracterization of him to suggest that he's saying people shouldn't cooperate. Because he does mention closer relatives such as primates, and when discussing their social structures he mentions that things tend to not turn out so well for the alpha chimps that aren't cooperative or reciprocal in their relationship with the other chimps.

He has also stated that a reasonable political left-wing is a necessary part of political discourse, because in his view just as the existence of competence hierarchies is necessary in the pursuit of something of value which the right recognizes, the left is also necessary because people are also displaced and left at the bottom in unfortunate positions, and that it's not a good thing to have people stack up at the bottom in need because then they're suffering as individuals and it destabilizes society as a whole. He has actually praised some of the historic accomplishments of the political left in Canada such as workers protections, the Canadian healthcare system, etc. and think it's a good thing for part of the political system to advocate for the working class.

He also has said for people to adopt responsibility not just for selfish ambition but so they can be of use to the people around them. Something he said was that it's an admirable goal to be the kind of person the rest of your family can rely on at a funeral when a loved one dies. He argues that the point of personal responsibility isn't just so that you can take care of yourself but also your family and the broader community.


You seem to have this misguided understanding of Jordan Peterson's views that essentially amounts to a caricature. He's not some proponent of the idea that cooperation is bad and that it should just be every man for himself, and has said many such things to the contrary. whilst chimp behaviour is a bit like humans, popularised in the third chimpanzee, we have a lot of differences, the low reliance on the nose and chemical signalling for one. No one ever points that out to the hack.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
I do not know enough about evolutionary biology to discuss the merits of Dr. Peterson's Lobster example.

Why is that relevant here however? How is it even remotely comparable in terms of the scale and potential damage that the ideology that is rampant in academia can do to society? One of the academics who was part of the Gender Grievance studies hoax, received a call from a U.N. Ambassador to advice on policy because of one his false papers because it aligned with a leftist narrative.

Really comprehend that for a minute. Take a step back, think about that for 40 seconds. That is utterly insane. Now imagine the sheer NUMBER of students being indoctrinated by these thoughts, and are sent into the world.

Can we stick to the topic at hand? This is the second time you have mentioned the Lobster thing. It has been acknowledged, but we want to discuss the topic at hand.

I think the idea that Dr. Peterson is worth mentioning compared to this is underestimating the scale of the issue. There are people, professional academics, who have no ability to think critically. They have been indoctrinated to a radical degree. Ideas that disagree with them, were forced to be edited by editors before it was published. Conclusions are FORMED. Any pseudo-research is used to fill in the gap. It is the opposite of science, and it is so widespread, it is legit a public crisis imho. We are raising an entire generation of academics incapable of confronting ideas they disagree with or dissecting arguments in a logical manner. I see this every day. Undergraduates who are incapable of holding an open conversation with any degree of aggression or conflict. They immediately fold. Children, in the bodies of young adults.

We will all be speaking Mandarin within 3 generations at this rate in the province of New Beijing. We're raising mentally stunted pussies with a shit work ethic. It's not all bad, but I can notice an OVERALL decrease in quality of freshmen. This is all anecdotal and could be utter bullshit so feel free to ignore. Maybe my experience with this year's undergraduates was just improbably poor. I don't have the data to give factual conclusions. He relies on peoples lack of understanding and I would suggest through his YouTube he fools and indoctrinates far more people with his credentials.

Oh I see, we might as well dismiss the utility of the field of evolutionary biology and psychological experimentation or drug testing on animals because no other species is 100% identical to humanity and anyone who thinks there's anything that can be learned about our own behavior from such studies are hacks.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Oh I see, we might as well dismiss the utility of the field of evolutionary biology and psychological experimentation or drug testing on animals because no other species is 100% identical to humanity and anyone who thinks there's anything that can be learned about our own behavior from such studies are hacks. Evolutionary Biology is fine when it's tempered with common sense. He simplifies things to meet his hypothesis. Science doesn't work like that.

Even psychologists find many of his ideas laughable.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life

I skimmed it, and he barely says anything related to psychology, it's just him talking about moral and political ideology. The author's credential as a psychologist isn't relevant to anything he's saying.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I skimmed it, and he barely says anything related to psychology, it's just him talking about moral and political ideology. The author's credential as a psychologist isn't relevant to anything he's saying. well his ideology only gets credence because of his credentials. He's a hack DMB.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
well his ideology only gets credence because of his credentials. He's a hack DMB.
The author you linked to? Yes I agree, you were giving his purely ideological criticism of Peterson credence only because he's a psychologist. Excellent moment of self-reflection.

I don't want to rustle any jimmies but I don't think it's a legitimate criticism to say someone has no business talking about a subject for which he has no credentials. Or she.


People levied this criticism against Dawkins when he got into philosophy in one of his books. Atheist and theist alike. "He's a retired biologist, not a philosopher! He has no business talking about stuff he doesn't know!" That's dumb as hell. Sure, there are deep chasms of intellectual exploration in Philosophy that probably requires quite a bit of study and understanding. But as a philosophy degree holder...holy shit it's not that hard. You can learn all the stuff I did in about 6 months of personal study. And probably end up knowing more.

This type criticism shows favor to brick and mortar university educations. When you can definitely get a better and well-rounded education on a particular topic on your own time. It's not pre-1970s anymore. This type of appeal to authority logical fallacy is not legit.

Either the arguments are terrible or they are not. Do not attack the person because they don't have a nigh-useless degree.

Hell, I have talked to multiple former classmates. Every last one of them forgot almost all details of their degrees. They don't remember jack. Even the professors forget about the content of some of the courses they taught. The topics people talk about are usually best represented at that time of discussion when they take the time to research it. I think the degree helps them to know what avenues to pursue to research. Even then, researching topics has become so easy that you don't really need a degree to get into deep topics.

I notice you do this quite a bit. For example, you dismiss Tim Pool just off the basis he's a youtuber, and then you cite random people's comments about him on reddit as proof that he's an *******. His opinion doesn't mean anything because he's a youtuber, but random people's opinion of him on reddit are substantive.

And then you cite some random Jewish guy saying that Ben Shapiro is alt-right... and you heavily emphasize the guy being Jewish as if that's evidence.


You rely on credentials all the time so long as the person holding them has an ideological view as you and confirms your biases, while claiming to speak out against people who rely solely on credentials. It's a very weird hypocrisy.

That was addressed at Putinbot, not you DDM

Originally posted by Emperordmb
That was addressed at Putinbot, not you DDM

It's a good thing you clarified. I'm one of he biggest emotional SJW types on the board, didn't understand the context, and had memes lined up for pages to yeet you into oblivion.

(JK, I understood the context and knew you were talking to Whirly. TSall good, babuh.)

@DDM I'm going to disagree that you can learn as much on your own, good will hunting and Srinvinista not withstanding, I truly doubt anyone on my course at Kings could have learnt what we were taught alone and it's a mid top 50 in the world University which means to get in it you have to test better than for most other universities in the world.

@ DMB, I get you like him. But he's a hack, I simply do the reverse of what his supporters do, I point to his bad science and cite people equally as qualified.

Of course intelligence is interchangeable to a point, Jared Diamond applied Science to Geography in a relatively new way 30 years ago.

The problem with dumbed down to fit an hypothesis scientists like JP is they cherry pick and ignore the bigger picture. I could give an interesting discourse on environment epigenetic and serotonin release if I wanted but why bother? Its cherry picking a single argument to make DMB rethink his lobster status.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
@DDM I'm going to disagree that you can learn as much on your own, good will hunting and Srinvinista not withstanding, I truly doubt anyone on my course at Kings could have learnt what we were taught alone and it's a mid top 50 in the world University which means to get in it you have to test better than for most other universities in the world.

Depends. If the degree requires you have access to multi-million dollar facilities (some biochemistry majors, medical sciences, etc.), it is impossible to get a comparable or better education. Even then, there are plenty of clever work-arounds and exceptions.

But for almost all degrees, literally almost all, it's not true at all. What we are left with is a set of university elitist-centrism, like yours, which are quickly becoming antiquated in today's world.

For example, let's take business and strategic directions. How do your degrees form 20+ years ago help with data mining and big data analytics? Do you even have a tiny bit of knowledge of hadoop? Splunk? No? Then how can you compete with the heavy hitters who are investing heavily in machine learning and big data analytics? This is what setting strategic directions are about now to run a successful business. That's at the top level and mid level.

Hopefully, you'll retire before this new-wave of information saturation starts to negatively impact you because of your antiquated beliefs about education and knowledge. You don't want to be part of the boomers that are forced to retire early because you've failed to fundamentally adapt to a changing market.

It may seem like I'm being condescending but I'm not. That's just the way it is.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Depends. If the degree requires you have access to multi-million dollar facilities (some biochemistry majors, medical sciences, etc.), it is impossible to get a comparable or better education. Even then, there are plenty of clever work-arounds and exceptions. Molecular Bio is really the highest kind of Biochemistry btw. My specialisation was Enzymeology.

But for almost all degrees, literally almost all, it's not true at all. What we are left with is a set of university elitist-centrism, like yours, which are quickly becoming antiquated in today's world.

For example, let's take business and strategic directions. How do your degrees form 20+ years ago help with data mining and big data analytics? Do you even have a tiny bit of knowledge of hadoop? Splunk? No? Then how can you compete with the heavy hitters who are investing heavily in machine learning and big data analytics? This is what setting strategic directions are about now to run a successful business. That's at the top level and mid level.

Hopefully, you'll retire before this new-wave of information saturation starts to negatively impact you because of your antiquated beliefs about education and knowledge. You don't want to be part of the boomers that are forced to retire early because you've failed to fundamentally adapt to a changing market.

It may seem like I'm being condescending but I'm not. That's just the way it is. No but I understand CRISPR and can edit a genome. Computers aren't the only tech out there. I also as I have often said don't use my first degree for work, like Peterson it's not what I studied but where that opens doors for me. That equation is not going to change in the foreseeable future.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
No but I understand CRISPR and can edit a genome. Computers aren't the only tech out there. I also as I have often said don't use my first degree for work, like Peterson it's not what I studied but where that opens doors for me. That equation is not going to change in the foreseeable future.

So you think that information and "computational statistics and data analysis" are not involved in genomic innovations vis-a-vis CRISPR, eh?

Then you'r not aware of the necessary steps biomedical science has taken with CRISPR and big data.

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/10/24/big-data-meets-crispr-cloud-biology-platform-speed-crop-improvement-via-gene-editing/



I believe I understand your perspective. You'r cautioning against technological elitism and I'm cautioning against antiquated learning institutions. Obviously, science is not on your side as the steady march of science and technology will proceed with or without you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you think that information and "computational statistics and data analysis" are not involved in genomic innovations vis-a-vis CRISPR, eh?

Then you'r not aware of the necessary steps biomedical science has taken with CRISPR and big data.

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/10/24/big-data-meets-crispr-cloud-biology-platform-speed-crop-improvement-via-gene-editing/



I believe I understand your perspective. You'r cautioning against technological elitism and I'm cautioning against antiquated learning institutions. Obviously, science is not on your side as the steady march of science and technology will proceed with or without you. Data is automated, you realise the top high schools in silicon valley no longer teach programming or ICT because they believe both are becoming simpler and more intuitive. It's interesting as you warn against a classical education the technological elite aspire to a return to basics.

What I'm arguing is far simpler, look past a person's credentials and see if what they are saying fits the facts or are they fitting the facts to support what they are saying.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Data is automated, you realise the top high schools in silicon valley no longer teach programming or ICT because they believe both are becoming simpler and more intuitive.

I'm not sure where you hear or read about such stupid bullshit like this. You're coming off worse than Fly or you're just trolling.

They are teaching coding to students in silicon valley and it's such a big deal that they even have non-proift programs for those that cannot afford the private schools:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/11/the-privilege-to-code/



Originally posted by Putinbot1
It's interesting as you warn against a classical education the technological elite aspire to a return to basics.

The opposite you mean because even more technological innovations are coming from 17-19 year old entrepreneurs than ever before.

https://www.visioncritical.com/blog/entrepreneurial-gen-z

I honestly think you're trolling. You state clearly wrong-fact x and wait for me to reply to disprove it. And you're repeating this over and over.

Coding is taught more than ever in secondary school.

Technology innovations are coming from the younger and younger.

Young people are becoming more and more disenfranchised with academic institutions and are learning more organically now than ever before and it is continues to change.

Big data, big business, technology is in everything bla bla bla

Originally posted by Putinbot1
What I'm arguing is far simpler, look past a person's credentials and see if what they are saying fits the facts or are they fitting the facts to support what they are saying.

My bad. I thought your argument was the things you were posting about: his credentials, him being a hack, and getting criticized for talking about lobsters outside of his credentials.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not sure where you hear or read about such stupid bullshit like this. You're coming off worse than Fly or you're just trolling.

They are teaching coding to students in silicon valley and it's such a big deal that they even have non-proift programs for those that cannot afford the private schools:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/11/the-privilege-to-code/





The opposite you mean because even more technological innovations are coming from 17-19 year old entrepreneurs than ever before.

https://www.visioncritical.com/blog/entrepreneurial-gen-z

I honestly think you're trolling. You state clearly wrong-fact x and wait for me to reply to disprove it. And you're repeating this over and over.

Coding is taught more than ever in secondary school.

Technology innovations are coming from the younger and younger.

Young people are becoming more and more disenfranchised with academic institutions and are learning more organically now than ever before and it is continues to change.

Big data, big business, technology is in everything bla bla bla



My bad. I thought your argument was the things you were posting about: his credentials, him being a hack, and getting criticized for talking about lobsters outside of his credentials.


Yeah but no,

https://amp.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-parents-raising-their-kids-tech-free-red-flag-2018-2

Silicon Valley parents can see firsthand, either through living or working in the Bay Area, that technology is potentially harmful to kids.
Many parents are now restricting, or outright banning, screen time for their children.
The trend follows a long-standing practice among high-level tech executives who have set limits for their own children for years.


https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2015/dec/02/schools-that-ban-tablets-traditional-education-silicon-valley-london

technology
Parents working in Silicon Valley are sending their children to a school where there’s not a computer in sight – and they’re not alone


And lots of other info out there.

No, his credentials are fine it's fitting evidence to fit a hypothesis which is inherently flawed and using those credentials to lend credibility.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Everyone makes the retarded argument "ermagerd, lobsters diverged from us a long time ago, that makes it retarded" that's the point, the point is to show that it's not a cultural phenomenon, but a biological one so deep that it manifests across species as different as humans and lobsters.

And yes, Jordan Peterson does in the broad span of his work cite to creatures we are more closely related to, such as when referring to experiments on rats, or the social structures of other primates. He does mention them as well. Everyone just likes to hone in on the misconception that he only talks about the lobster.


It's also a complete mischaracterization of him to suggest that he's saying people shouldn't cooperate. Because he does mention closer relatives such as primates, and when discussing their social structures he mentions that things tend to not turn out so well for the alpha chimps that aren't cooperative or reciprocal in their relationship with the other chimps.

He has also stated that a reasonable political left-wing is a necessary part of political discourse, because in his view just as the existence of competence hierarchies is necessary in the pursuit of something of value which the right recognizes, the left is also necessary because people are also displaced and left at the bottom in unfortunate positions, and that it's not a good thing to have people stack up at the bottom in need because then they're suffering as individuals and it destabilizes society as a whole. He has actually praised some of the historic accomplishments of the political left in Canada such as workers protections, the Canadian healthcare system, etc. and think it's a good thing for part of the political system to advocate for the working class.

He also has said for people to adopt responsibility not just for selfish ambition but so they can be of use to the people around them. Something he said was that it's an admirable goal to be the kind of person the rest of your family can rely on at a funeral when a loved one dies. He argues that the point of personal responsibility isn't just so that you can take care of yourself but also your family and the broader community.


You seem to have this misguided understanding of Jordan Peterson's views that essentially amounts to a caricature. He's not some proponent of the idea that cooperation is bad and that it should just be every man for himself, and has said many such things to the contrary.

I do enjoy seeing people twist themselves into pretzels over JP.

Originally posted by Surtur
I do enjoy seeing people twist themselves into pretzels over JP. makes me laugh that people imagine things.

Another fact

Still, only 36 percent of Americans hold a valid passport, according to the State Department, compared to 60 percent of passport-holding Canadians and 75 percent for Brits and Aussies. That means almost 70 percent of you are unqualified for international travel.

More lobster talk

Originally posted by Robtard
More lobster talk The guys biology is terrible, he doesn't understand the difference between diverged and developed.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
makes me laugh that people imagine things.

Another fact

Still, only 36 percent of Americans hold a valid passport, according to the State Department, compared to 60 percent of passport-holding Canadians and 75 percent for Brits and Aussies. That means almost 70 percent of you are unqualified for international travel.

Just got my passport renewed, I'm part of the top elitist 36% and I do smugly look down on those plebs beneath me, like Surt

Originally posted by Putinbot1
The guys biology is terrible, he doesn't understand the difference between diverged and developed.

Does he not have access to a copy of Oxford's dict?

Originally posted by Robtard
Just got my passport renewed, I'm part of the top elitist 36% and I do smugly look down on those plebs beneath me, like Surt Haha,I would imagine the number in Surts circumstances having a passport is far lower than 36 percent. Not saying he hasn't I have no way on knowing that.

Originally posted by Robtard
Does he not have access to a copy of Oxford's dict? he is out by at least 150 million years probably more on when man and lobsters had a common ancestor.

What's a 150million years. Do lobsters even clean their rooms?

Originally posted by Robtard
What's a 150million years. Do lobsters even clean their rooms? this is true, what it means though is a lobsters nervous system has little resemblance to our own. For **** sake the brain has almost none of the same structures.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Yeah but no,

https://amp.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-parents-raising-their-kids-tech-free-red-flag-2018-2

Silicon Valley parents can see firsthand, either through living or working in the Bay Area, that technology is potentially harmful to kids.
Many parents are now restricting, or outright banning, screen time for their children.
The trend follows a long-standing practice among high-level tech executives who have set limits for their own children for years.

You just said...



Which is not the same point at all as parents raising their small children without a very small set of tech because they are "woke" parents? Right?

You do realize you're now talking about something completely different, right?


Originally posted by Putinbot1
https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2015/dec/02/schools-that-ban-tablets-traditional-education-silicon-valley-london

technology
Parents working in Silicon Valley are sending their children to a school where there’s not a computer in sight – and they’re not alone


And lots of other info out there.

No, his credentials are fine it's fitting evidence to fit a hypothesis which is inherently flawed and using those credentials to lend credibility.

So your original point was just ONE school in Silicon valley, a private school, who has a very specific teaching method, is doing this?

Well, now that's different. You can find fringe schools like these all over, not just in Silicon Valley.


Also, it's convenient that you've shifted the topic from having programming and app-dev courses in schools to having technology in schools. Amazing!

Originally posted by Putinbot1
makes me laugh that people imagine things.

Another fact

Still, only 36 percent of Americans hold a valid passport, according to the State Department, compared to 60 percent of passport-holding Canadians and 75 percent for Brits and Aussies. That means almost 70 percent of you are unqualified for international travel.

You're so mad and triggered over JP lol. It's the saddest, but funniest thing in the world.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
makes me laugh that people imagine things.

Another fact

Still, only 36 percent of Americans hold a valid passport, according to the State Department, compared to 60 percent of passport-holding Canadians and 75 percent for Brits and Aussies. That means almost 70 percent of you are unqualified for international travel.

I remember this It's because the US has more of what people want to see and do than other places so many Americans travel hundreds of miles and are still in the US.

It's great to be in the USA.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I remember this It's because the US has more of what people want to see and do than other places so many Americans travel hundreds of miles and are still in the US.

It's great to be in the USA.

'Murica is #1

Originally posted by dadudemon
You just said...



Which is not the same point at all as parents raising their small children without a very small set of tech because they are "woke" parents? Right?

You do realize you're now talking about something completely different, right?




So your original point was just ONE school in Silicon valley, a private school, who has a very specific teaching method, is doing this?

Well, now that's different. You can find fringe schools like these all over, not just in Silicon Valley.


Also, it's convenient that you've shifted the topic from having programming and app-dev courses in schools to having technology in schools. Amazing! no I said they are sending there kids to school with no ICT lessons see Guardian article. Same as said before nothing different being argued. Reason same as before because tech is more intuitive. I know you put a lot of stock in IT DDM, but it's getting so easy to use and program that the basics are far more important. As they have always been and always will be. Computer tech apart from hardware which is electronics, robotics etc is becoming short course stuff. The other sciences are getting harder but the computers which support simple data crunching are easy to use. Which makes sense because data crunching is boring as hell and usually unless you are dealing with massaging data boring as hell. Although the predictions generated may be fun as may the results. Spin it how you want, it is what it is.

Originally posted by Surtur
You're so mad and triggered over JP lol. It's the saddest, but funniest thing in the world. really no, but you have cognitive dissonance that one of your heroes hasn't a clue about evolution from the factual point of view.

He is the uneducated man's smart man as often stated even by his peers.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
no I said they are sending there kids to school with no ICT lessons see Guardian article. Same as said before nothing different being argued. Reason same as before because tech is more intuitive. I know you put a lot of stock in IT DDM, but it's getting so easy to use and program that the basics are far more important. As they have always been and always will be. Computer tech apart from hardware which is electronics, robotics etc is becoming short course stuff. The other sciences are getting harder but the computers which support simple data crunching are easy to use. Which makes sense because data crunching is boring as hell and usually unless you are dealing with massaging data boring as hell. Although the predictions generated may be fun as may the results. Spin it how you want, it is what it is.

Yes, I'm aware that you're wrong and tried to change the topic to another wrong point. No need to rehash how out of touch you are with reality.


Meanwhile, in reality, children are being sent to coding camps, robotics classes, machine learning classes, and Vo-Tech schools instead of the more traditional forms of education.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, I'm aware that you're wrong and tried to change the topic to another wrong point. No need to rehash how out of touch you are with reality.


Meanwhile, in reality, children are being sent to coding camps, robotics classes, machine learning classes, and Vo-Tech schools instead of the more traditional forms of education. all those things happen even in the third world, however as you've had proven to you by fact. The best schools in Silicon Valley don't.

Because it's all getting easier to use. In fact computers even program themselves more and more.

You may not like it DDM but IT and humans will be going their separate ways more and more. The latest chess computer even taught itself to play and plays not like a machine but like a super human. Learning algorithms will make many kinds of coding redundant in a sweep and make machines easier for humans to interact with. I hope it's not too quick so you have a job in 20 years.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
all those things happen even in the third world, however as you've had proven to you by fact.

And isn't that wonderful?


Originally posted by Putinbot1
The best schools in Silicon Valley don't.

You mean one private school that rich yuppies send their children to which has no technology programs and is setting their children up for failure in the tech industry, doesn't? Right, I know. Bet you some of these parents are anti-vaxxers, too. That's the type that does this type of idiotic and close-minded thing.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Because it's all getting easier to use. In fact computers even program themselves more and more.

The opposite is true. Why do you state all these false things left and right? Technology is becoming more and more prohibitively complicated and nuanced as time goes on. They predict that in the future, humans will not be able to manage technology anymore and will require the interfacing and development of technology through AI Brokers. We will need to provide an abstracted input or interface and have the AI brokers make the changes/updates.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
You may not like it DDM but IT and humans will be going their separate ways more and more.

The opposite is true. I like it and it is why I work in this industry. But it seems you don't like it which is why you seem to have a weird obsession with "not technology" and old-school (pun intended) education methods.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
The latest chess computer even taught itself to play and plays not like a machine but like a super human.

And irrelevant point. But okay.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Learning algorithms will make many kinds of coding redundant in a sweep and make machines easier for humans to interact with.

You mean machine learning. And you mean it will become harder and harder for humans to innovate (how it is in reality) without highly specialized skills that traditional education methods cannot provide.

What I'm talking about is reality. My professional network is saturated with leaders and recruiters needing to fill positions with people who don't exist. The industry is desperate and all of these positions pay six figures even with 2-3 years of experience and semi-related fields.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I hope it's not too quick so you have a job in 20 years.

I'll be fine. I'll be one of the last types of humans who still have jobs. Someone has to transition the rest of humans. That's me.

But I have noted that you've just done a "no u" reply.

Putin getting wrecked again. Holy shit dude why do you even engage DDM? It never ends well for you lol.

How many times must you get burned before you respect fire?

Originally posted by dadudemon
And isn't that wonderful?




You mean one private school that rich yuppies send their children to which has no technology programs and is setting their children up for failure in the tech industry, doesn't? Right, I know. Bet you some of these parents are anti-vaxxers, too. That's the type that does this type of idiotic and close-minded thing.



The opposite is true. Why do you state all these false things left and right? Technology is becoming more and more prohibitively complicated and nuanced as time goes on. They predict that in the future, humans will not be able to manage technology anymore and will require the interfacing and development of technology through AI Brokers. We will need to provide an abstracted input or interface and have the AI brokers make the changes/updates.



The opposite is true. I like it and it is why I work in this industry. But it seems you don't like it which is why you seem to have a weird obsession with "not technology" and old-school (pun intended) education methods.



And irrelevant point. But okay.



You mean machine learning. And you mean it will become harder and harder for humans to innovate (how it is in reality) without highly specialized skills that traditional education methods cannot provide.

What I'm talking about is reality. My professional network is saturated with leaders and recruiters needing to fill positions with people who don't exist. The industry is desperate and all of these positions pay six figures even with 2-3 years of experience and semi-related fields.



I'll be fine. I'll be one of the last types of humans who still have jobs. Someone has to transition the rest of humans. That's me.

But I have noted that you've just done a "no u" reply. I see, I touched a nerve everything you say is opinion. Interestingly, as I've shown a lot of experts disagree with you. You are right on one point though it gets harder for humans to innovate which means the number doing it becomes much fewer and as the pool of people involved spreads the indicator will be maths. Most of these people are doing there best work younger and younger below 25 and most did not learn to code at school and never will, all of them are very good at maths. Like I said I hope you still have a job in 20 years mate. You'll only be a young man then like I am now.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Like I said I hope you still have a job in 20 years mate. You'll only be a young man then like I am now.

If you could predict what the job market would be like in 20 years, we wouldn't be having this "conversation." lol

Hell, if you knew what the education landscape and job market were like even now, we wouldn't have this conversation. grouchoawe

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you could predict what the job market would be like in 20 years, we wouldn't be having this "conversation." lol

Hell, if you knew what the education landscape and job market were like even now, we wouldn't have this conversation. grouchoawe Agreed, I do know no computer can do what I do, so I'm safe and got asked to interview in Moscow on Monday, too cold in winter and I'd feel less safe there than in KSA or Africa. Very good money mind but too cold. Interesting thing is different jobs see different things as important. I see IT often as a useful tool but just a tool, yourself, you work in it's development and implementation I see you'd see it as more than that and do understand your point of view. It will eventually take over and dehumanise much of the workforce left operating it, whether a class of humans still living will exist above or elow this who can say, will we free ourselves, free a few or all become slaves or redundant, who can say? I suspect biotech will change people beyond recognition or perhaps just those who can afford it over the next two hundred years. All this race and gender foolishness pales between the divide between rich and poor. This sadly is only going to increase over time.