Today's Random News

[Fe 26]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...terson/550859/

Article about how interviewers won't let onjordan peterson talk.

So, is TNL going to ever get a check from the rest of the internet? I feel like we've done everything that is huge in the media, 5 to 10 years earlier.

I mean shit, I posted a complete description of that arguing technique like 5 years ago? I even called it the SSJN-effect.

[Calliander]

I won't say I've never done it but I definitely agree that it's shitty and annoying. Worse, the people who need to hear the message that author is trying to get across will only view it in the context of the discussion between Newman and Peterson - and react angrily to that, probably - rather than in the light of the logical fallacy and duplicity behind such a technique. Double worse, there are likely people who are so used to having arguments in this manner that there isn't any willing deception going on when they employ it and view it as a normal way to talk about things.

[Dunlap]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...terson/550859/

Article about how interviewers won't let onjordan peterson talk.

So, is TNL going to ever get a check from the rest of the internet? I feel like we've done everything that is huge in the media, 5 to 10 years earlier.

I mean shit, I posted a complete description of that arguing technique like 5 years ago? I even called it the SSJN-effect.

I think you do it the opposite way. You make a claim, people disagree, you claim you never said the original claim and call the other person out for saying something they didn't say. It's about as productive as what's in the article, though.

[Fe 26]

The ip effect.

[Fe 26]

I don't do that though, though I'm sure your ego tells you I do

[YellerDog]

Wow, it's happening right now.

[Josh]

Yeah, it’s a daily thing. You’re the worst.

[Rumpy]

If there was written proof of it, over a period of many years, maybe you guys would have a point.

[Drewbacca]

Unless science is just a bunch of stats gathered from a collection of dodgy experiments and surveys with different methodologies, clumsily merged together to support a pre-determined conclusion, I really don't think that argument applies.
"Science" also told us that eating a fuckton of simple carbo-hydrates is healthy, while red meat and eggs will kill you.

With this mentality you enable flat earthers and climate change deniers. Yes, science is an evolving set of literature. But the current edge of lit that has been cited in other work (ie was used to predict) is the most informed thought we have.

[kedawa]

I'm not enabling anything. I'm dismissive of exactly the kind of bunk 'science' they cling to. Flat earthers are in denial about basic geometry, and climate change deniers are motivated by political foolishness. Social sciences, and psychology in particular, are awash in faulty experiments and aggregate studies, and lacking in any sort of functional understanding of the underlying mechanisms of human thought and behaviour. We're still in the age of literally poking the brain with a stick to see what it does.