Jordan Peterson | Page 13 | INFJ Forum

Jordan Peterson

Chemist, actually, but yes, people are never just one thing.
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.
 
"I didn't mean to scare her with my dog" while having a shit eating grin on his face lol.
"I understand why he has to do this – to prove he's a man. ... He's afraid of his own weakness."
-Angela Merkel in response
 
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.
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.
 
By the way, Philostam, I want to answer you but I have a mother of a headache at the moment, which makes it hard to think. I'll reply once it passes.
Hope you feel better soon ma'am.
 
Pin how dare you put a tl;dr addressed to me. I read every single word and enjoyed it. I like breadth and depth of thought. You know that!
You and Deleted member 16771 motivate me to write less concise posts.
 
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
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.
 
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.
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.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pin and slant
Only one of your links worked, @Pin, but I hope you understand that this isn't 'good':



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.

Even given studies 2 and 3? Both of them check the test measurement against other people's suppositions.
 
That's true, but with respect Peterson, he uses his background as a clinician to feign expertise in subjects he does not have.

This is literally everyone in the job market though
 
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.

There are approximately zero people on earth who will meet your standards of excellence