Jordan Peterson

Lady Jolanda said:
Chemist, actually, but yes, people are never just one thing.
Click to expand...
That's true, but with respect Peterson, he uses his background as a clinician to feign expertise in subjects he does not have.

While Angela Merkel has a doctorate in Quantum Chemistry, she does not suggest that it is relevant to being the Chancellor of Germany.

Also, Vladimir Putin is a dick for this.
 
philostam said:
OK, but the point remains - why do you have a problem with someone that is educated in a narrow field and branched out?

Peterson was always interested in Jung and other authors which are not accepted by mainstream psychology, so he found his unique path.
Click to expand...
It's fine to "branch out," but it should just be done responsibly. For example, if I were the world's foremost expert on linguistics I wouldn't be giving dating advice. As a matter of course, I'm just highly skeptical of people who aren't experts on the subject that they're discussing if they're talking about that subject.

It doesn't make sense to ask a linguist for dating advice even if he is cunning.
 
slant said:
I was trying to prompt you to reflect as to why but I'll just accept the compliment :p

Or, at least I think it's a compliment
Click to expand...
It's a compliment.

I'm not sure, I think that this is an engaging topic. I have a lot to say about this topic because my brief interest in Peterson coincided with my recent interest in theology and the Christian religion. My current interest: logical reasoning.

My goal is to get really good at it.
 
Pin said:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one because he has produced peer-reviewed research before, he's capable of quality work.

Here.

Here.

Here.

While he's not a complete quack, he's unfortunately still a quack with respect to most topics he discusses outside of his area of expertise.

Because I now have evidence that he's capable of so much more than arguing with blue-haired undergraduates, I am immensely disappointed in him.
Click to expand...
Only one of your links worked, @Pin, but I hope you understand that this isn't 'good':

Abstract said:
The Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ) is a new self-report measure of creative achievement that assesses achievement across 10 domains of creativity. It was designed to be objective, empirically valid, and easy to administer and score. Study 1 established test-retest reliability (r = .81, p < .0001) and internal consistency reliability (a = .96) in a sample of 117 undergraduate students. Study 2 established predictive validity of the CAQ against artist ratings of a creative product, a collage (r = .59, p < .0001, n = 39). Study 3 (n = 86) established convergent validity with other measures of creative potential, including divergent thinking tests (r = .47, p < .0001), the Creative Personality Scale (Gough, 1979; r = .33, p = .004), Intellect (Goldberg, 1992; r = .51, p < .0001), and Openness to Experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992; r = .33, p = .002). Study 4 established discriminant validity between the CAQ and both IQ and self-serving bias. Study 5 examined the factor structure of the CAQ. A three-factor solution identified Expressive, Scientific, and Performance factors of creative achievement. A two-factor solution identified an Arts factor and a Science factor.
Click to expand...

It's 'fine', but it has very limited validity for measuring actual 'creativity'. Again, it relies at bottom on the suppositions of the test creators.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
It's 'fine', but it has very limited validity for measuring actual 'creativity'. Again, it relies at bottom on the suppositions of the test creators.
Click to expand...

There are approximately zero people on earth who will meet your standards of excellence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top