Survey on sexual harassment and sexual assault in climbing

Ryan Swanson wrote:

What in the hell does your anti white american male narrative have to do with this thread?

It's a response to all the Jordan Peterson videos. Lawl. I'm a white, straight, American male... but sometimes I recognize that I have more - wait for it - privilege... than others! But please continue your rant about how I'm derailing this 16-page thread.

This thread has had quite a lot of value added side trips, IMO.

I took the gender IAT thing. It was sorta interesting, but life changing? Not hardly. All of us rely on instant information, most of which is just that, information. Then, the brain decides if it needs more thought, or that huge shot of adrenaline. Even with the latter, we still think, often much better, about how to react. The time slowing down part is the pause we are also hard wired with, to not make our situation worse. Jumping off the cliff to avoid the big cat isn't conducive to reproducing.

The test? I think it just tested my inability to poke buttons quickly. Such a Luddite. Can't type with my thumbs, doomed to extinction....

Best, OLH

J Squared wrote:

see, you're the one that seems to be confused here. I almost want to call what you're doing mansplaining, as you've decided that since I didn't follow your tangent, I must be ignorant.

i'll say it again since you didn't seem to read it.  my post where I gave my opinions on post traumatic stress and it's name... was in a response to a question that was about "the public perception of PTSD". I was also trying to link it with wonderwoman's sentence about "roughly 50% of the population (i.e. women) is walking around with some form of PTSD". my initial response was not about "what is the clinical definition of PTSD".  anybody can go look that up.
whatever the clinical definition in the DSM for PTSD is at the time... is something that only matters between clinicians and maybe their patients at best. it is tangential to the public perception. (if you think "the public" has ever read even a page of the DSM then ho boy..)

i'm not trying to "disclaim a clinical thing".  you're just having a completely different argument.
perhaps you should think about "not being able to explain a clinical thing without clinical terms".  especially here, in this womens forum thread about the practicalities of sexual harassment/assault in climbing...

Well, if I misunderstood you, then sorry about that.  My first post that you disagreed with was along the lines of what you suggest here, and you disagreed with that, leaving me with the impression I had, for right or wrong.

As for the 'explain a clinical thing without clinical terms' yes, I can reduce something to common language completely, but perhaps first, you could offer me the explanation of which words in 'Post Traumatic Stress Disorder' are not clinical, and I can start with what is left?  (That would be 0 words.)  I did boil it down in that first post, which you responded to a bit oddly from my perspective, but again, it may just be that I got the wrong impression of your point.  After all, It is pretty clear to me that you got the wrong impression of mine.  And that's no crime.
I'll take you at your word that you understand it all, and that I just misunderstood the meaning of your points.

Despite all of that I could have done without the sexist remark/implication about 'mansplaining.'  I have no idea or care for what sex/gender/pronoun you choose and reducing my reaction to a gendered one is unappreciated.  No more so is the foray into explaining the motivation for my behavior to me.

Regardless, have a good day and safe climbs, J.  Maybe see you around some day and we can, through a different medium, chat over the misunderstanding & come to a better understanding of what was intended, if that is important to you.

Nate Ball wrote: Jordan Peterson: "his arguments are riddled with conspiracy theories and crude distortions of subjects"; "he’s buttressing his narrative with pseudo-facts, many of them created for the explicit purpose of promoting white nationalism, especially the whole notion of ‘cultural Marxism’"; "What he’s telling you is that certain people—most of them women and minorities—are trying to destroy not only our freedom to spite nonbinary university students for kicks, but all of Western civilization and the idea of objective truth itself"; "Peterson blows all of the familiar Breitbart- and Rebel-endorsed dog whistles"; "What he is not, however, is the author of any lasting work of scholarship, the originator of any important idea, or a public intellectual of any scientific credibility or moral seriousness."

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/
https://thewalrus.ca/the-professor-of-piffle/

Sad that in this day an age they can't argue his ideas, they can only call him alt-right, white supremacist, or a nazi in order to silence him. He is not even on the right, that is the hilarious thing about that attack, and goes to show the authors have not actually studied his content. Have you actually listened to any of his lectures (maps of meaning, bible series, etc)? 

Ashort wrote:

Sad that in this day an age they can't argue his ideas, they can only call him alt-right, white supremacist, or a nazi in order to silence him. He is not even on the right, that is the hilarious thing about that attack, and goes to show the authors have not actually studied his content. Have you actually listened to any of his lectures (maps of meaning, bible series, etc)? 

I agree with everything you say.  Ignore the people whining about what a nazi he is, and just focus on his ideas, which really really suck.  At best, they are very immature.  Peterson is the equivalent of an 8th grader talking to a bunch of 6th graders about the amazing insights he amassed while eating a bowl of sugar smacks that morning.  And he takes such a loooooooong time to even get these immature ideas out of his head that most people have gone to sleep before he finished.  Except the 6th graders who sit in rapt attention to their new prophet.  

If this is what passes for intellectualism on the right these days, we're all screwed.  Actually, I'll just come right out and say it: we are indeed all screwed.

ubu wrote:

I agree with everything you say.  (snip) If this is what passes for intellectualism on the right these days, we're all screwed.  

Ubu, are you sure you read with and agrees with what Ashort said?  

Ashort had wrote: "Sad that in this day an age they can't argue his ideas, they can only call him alt-right, white supremacist, or a nazi in order to silence him. He is not even on the right, that is the hilarious thing about that attack, and goes to show the authors have not actually studied his content."

Maybe I am missing something subtle here?

Ryan Swanson wrote: Care to explain why his ideas are, at best, immature?  However, if all you want to do is be the pot calling the kettle black, carry on.

Because his ideas are the meaningless pseudointellectualism you expect of Deepak Chopra, Jenny McCarthy and "Avocado" Wolf. They are neither rigorous nor grounded in reality, and have all the hallmarks of a horoscope: easy to read his advice as applicable to any situation without actually being specific, reasonable, or justifiable. A more fulsome critique is here:  https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

1st Edit: Like Bieber and Nickleback, Canada would like to offer it's apology for giving the world this tripe.

2nd Edit: Interesting commentary on Peterson's rise as a media star: http://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/canadaland-guide-jordan-b-peterson/

Tony B wrote:

Ubu, are you sure you read with and agrees with what Ashort said?  

Ashort had wrote: "Sad that in this day an age they can't argue his ideas, they can only call him alt-right, white supremacist, or a nazi in order to silence him. He is not even on the right, that is the hilarious thing about that attack, and goes to show the authors have not actually studied his content."

Maybe I am missing something subtle here?

Correction: I agree with everything he said in the first sentence :)

Ryan Swanson wrote: Care to explain why his ideas are, at best, immature?  However, if all you want to do is be the pot calling the kettle black, carry on.

Well, luckily I don't try to sell myself as a new age right-wing uber-intellectual psychobabbler, so I get to call Peterson whatever I like without being a hypocrite. 

Remember how when you were 14 and read Atlas Shrugged and thought you had stumbled onto something really deep and significant?  And then remember getting a bit more mileage in life and feeling really embarrassed for thinking that?  That's how Peterson's acolytes will feel in a few years...

FosterK wrote:

Because his ideas are the meaningless pseudointellectualism you expect of Deepak Chopra, Jenny McCarthy and "Avocado" Wolf. They are neither rigorous nor grounded in reality, and have all the hallmarks of a horoscope: easy to read his advice as applicable to any situation without actually being specific, reasonable, or justifiable. A more fulsome critique is here:  https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

1st Edit: Like Bieber and Nickleback, Canada would like to offer it's apology for giving the world this tripe.

2nd Edit: Interesting commentary on Peterson's rise as a media star: http://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/canadaland-guide-jordan-b-peterson/

I can link articles too!

http://quillette.com/2018/03/22/jordan-b-peterson-appeals-left/

Funny how a man that has spent his life as a psychology researcher, professor, and clinician is suddenly called pseudoscience when he says something that doesn't fit your narrative. Is it typical that someone who offers nothing but pseudoscience has over 100 peer reviewed articles published in professional journals?  

In the quote above it said "What he is not, however, is the author of any lasting work of scholarship, the originator of any important idea, or a public intellectual of any scientific credibility or moral seriousness."

^that is an outright lie

For example:
Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning individuals.

Reductions in latent inhibition (LI), the capacity to screen from conscious awareness stimuli previously experienced as irrelevant, have been generally associated with the tendency towards psychosis. However, "failure" to screen out previously irrelevant stimuli might also hypothetically contribute to original thinking, particularly in combination with high IQ. Meta-analysis of two studies, conducted on youthful high-IQ samples. demonstrated that high lifetime creative achievers had significantly lower LI scores than low creative achievers (r(effect size) = .31, p = .0003, one-tailed). Eminent creative achievers (participants under 21 years who reported unusually high scores in a single domain of creative achievement) were 7 times more likely to have low rather than high LI scores, chi2 (1, N = 25) = 10.69, phi = .47. p = .003.

OR

Acute alcohol intoxication and cognitive functioning.

Acute alcohol intoxication produces changes in the cognitive functioning of normal individuals. These changes appear similar prima facie to those exhibited by individuals who sustain prefrontal lobe damage during adulthood. In order to test the validity of this observation, and to control for the confounding effects of expectancy, 72 male subjects were administered a battery of neuropsychological tests, within the context of a balanced-placebo design. Each subject received one of three widely different doses of alcohol. Analysis of the results of the cognitive test battery demonstrated that a high dose of alcohol detrimentally affects a number of functions associated with the prefrontal and temporal lobes, including planning, verbal fluency, memory and complex motor control. Expectancy does not appear to play a significant role in determining this effect. The implications of this pattern of impairment are analyzed and discussed.

OR

Psychological entropy: a framework for understanding uncertainty-related anxiety.

Entropy, a concept derived from thermodynamics and information theory, describes the amount of uncertainty and disorder within a system. Self-organizing systems engage in a continual dialogue with the environment and must adapt themselves to changing circumstances to keep internal entropy at a manageable level. We propose the entropy model of uncertainty (EMU), an integrative theoretical framework that applies the idea of entropy to the human information system to understand uncertainty-related anxiety. Four major tenets of EMU are proposed: (a) Uncertainty poses a critical adaptive challenge for any organism, so individuals are motivated to keep it at a manageable level; (b) uncertainty emerges as a function of the conflict between competing perceptual and behavioral affordances; (c) adopting clear goals and belief structures helps to constrain the experience of uncertainty by reducing the spread of competing affordances; and (d) uncertainty is experienced subjectively as anxiety and is associated with activity in the anterior cingulate cortex and with heightened noradrenaline release. By placing the discussion of uncertainty management, a fundamental biological necessity, within the framework of information theory and self-organizing systems, our model helps to situate key psychological processes within a broader physical, conceptual, and evolutionary context.

OR

Setting, elaborating, and reflecting on personal goals improves academic performance.

Of students who enroll in 4-year universities, 25% never finish. Precipitating causes of early departure include poor academic progress and lack of clear goals and motivation. In the present study, we investigated whether an intensive, online, written, goal-setting program for struggling students would have positive effects on academic achievement. Students (N = 85) experiencing academic difficulty were recruited to participate in a randomized, controlled intervention. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 intervention groups: Half completed the goal-setting program, and half completed a control task with intervention-quality face validity. After a 4-month period, students who completed the goal-setting intervention displayed significant improvements in academic performance compared with the control group. The goal-setting program thus appears to be a quick, effective, and inexpensive intervention for struggling undergraduate students.

OR

Play and the regulation of aggression (the topic of the video linked up thread)

This chapter concludes that the individual brings to the world a set of inborn motivations, including those that underlie aggression, and these motivations are brought under control--or not--as a consequence of socialization. This control appears at least twofold. The direct inhibition and regulation of aggression appears established as a consequence of rough-and-tumble (R&T) play and also appears associated, in principle, with the development of some forms of executive control. R&T play is different from exploratory activity and from aggression-two forms of behavior with which it can easily be confused. R&T play and exploratory activity share the fact that both are enjoyable. Formal behavioral analysis clearly discriminates R&T play from genuine aggression. Furthermore, it is clear that pathological socialization experiences, first in the context of the family and second in the context of early peer experiences (variants of the institutional sickness described by Rousseau) can produce and then reinforce in a child the conviction that the world is a cruel and sadistic place, fit only for interpretation through lenses colored by the desire for revenge. Finally, it is clear that complex processes of play, beginning with R&T play and culminating in the production of sophisticated, abstract socially shared frames of reference, play an important role in the modulation of aggression, both in regard to its inhibition and in regard to its integration into fully functional individual and social identities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Pseudoscience?

Ashort wrote: I can link articles too!

http://quillette.com/2018/03/22/jordan-b-peterson-appeals-left/

Funny how a man that has spent his life as a psychology researcher, professor, and clinician is suddenly called pseudoscience when he says something that doesn't fit your narrative. Is it typical that someone who offers nothing but pseudoscience has over 100 peer reviewed articles published in professional journals?  

In the quote above it said "What he is not, however, is the author of any lasting work of scholarship, the originator of any important idea, or a public intellectual of any scientific credibility or moral seriousness."

^that is an outright lie

For example:
...
Pseudoscience?

I love how the right suddenly has respect for publishing in peer reviewed journals, hahahaha!

Anyway, it's really amazing how publishing in Phychology Review makes you an expert on the welfare state, yet a climate scientist with 1000 citations to a paper on the North Atlantic Oscillation doesn't know anything about arctic sea level rise...

Check it out, Peterson's groundbreaking new study shows that alcohol intoxication affects cognitive function. Mind = blown.

I don't understand your meaning. Are you saying I am on the right?

Very confused what climate change has to do with the topic, or was that just a sad attempt at whataboutism?

Nate Tastic wrote: Consider bringing this back around and on topic again.

The video linked above discussed rough and tumble play and its benefits in reducing male aggression, which I think is pretty damn relevant to the topic of this thread, assault. If people want to discuss why the ideas in that video are pseudoscience by all means, please do. If you want to discredit someone with MSM hit pieces without discussing the merits of the ideas presented in the video then you're playing games. 

Play and the regulation of aggression (the topic of the video linked up thread)

This chapter concludes that the individual brings to the world a set of inborn motivations, including those that underlie aggression, and these motivations are brought under control--or not--as a consequence of socialization. This control appears at least twofold. The direct inhibition and regulation of aggression appears established as a consequence of rough-and-tumble (R&T) play and also appears associated, in principle, with the development of some forms of executive control. R&T play is different from exploratory activity and from aggression-two forms of behavior with which it can easily be confused. R&T play and exploratory activity share the fact that both are enjoyable. Formal behavioral analysis clearly discriminates R&T play from genuine aggression. Furthermore, it is clear that pathological socialization experiences, first in the context of the family and second in the context of early peer experiences (variants of the institutional sickness described by Rousseau) can produce and then reinforce in a child the conviction that the world is a cruel and sadistic place, fit only for interpretation through lenses colored by the desire for revenge. Finally, it is clear that complex processes of play, beginning with R&T play and culminating in the production of sophisticated, abstract socially shared frames of reference, play an important role in the modulation of aggression, both in regard to its inhibition and in regard to its integration into fully functional individual and social identities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

I realize now how primitive my climbing experiences have been, I mostly went places and tried to get up stuff !

Ryan Swanson wrote:

I prefer to cite facts and information in a debate, but ad hominem remarks work well too I hear.

Not an ad hominem, just my opinion.  You're welcome to your own as well.

Ashort wrote:

Psychological entropy: a framework for understanding uncertainty-related anxiety.

Entropy, a concept derived from thermodynamics and information theory, describes the amount of uncertainty and disorder within a system. Self-organizing systems engage in a continual dialogue with the environment and must adapt themselves to changing circumstances to keep internal entropy at a manageable level. We propose the entropy model of uncertainty (EMU), an integrative theoretical framework that applies the idea of entropy to the human information system to understand uncertainty-related anxiety. Four major tenets of EMU are proposed: (a) Uncertainty poses a critical adaptive challenge for any organism, so individuals are motivated to keep it at a manageable level; (b) uncertainty emerges as a function of the conflict between competing perceptual and behavioral affordances; (c) adopting clear goals and belief structures helps to constrain the experience of uncertainty by reducing the spread of competing affordances; and (d) uncertainty is experienced subjectively as anxiety and is associated with activity in the anterior cingulate cortex and with heightened noradrenaline release. By placing the discussion of uncertainty management, a fundamental biological necessity, within the framework of information theory and self-organizing systems, our model helps to situate key psychological processes within a broader physical, conceptual, and evolutionary context.

Pseudoscience?

Since his first line of the abstract is, objectively incorrect in three places, I'd be inclined to ignore everything he writes. And I read over the paper, he presents a bit of math, an incorrect understanding of entropy, and a spurious (at best) connection between an objective scientific theory and very subjective interpretations as to how his view of emotional reactions can be tied back to it.  So yeah, he doesn't understand the only real science in there and conflates his understanding with a hypothesis that can't be tested in any reliable, repeatable, meaningful fashion.  So, yeah, pseudoscience.  

Ashort wrote: I can link articles too!

http://quillette.com/2018/03/22/jordan-b-peterson-appeals-left/

Funny how a man that has spent his life as a psychology researcher, professor, and clinician is suddenly called pseudoscience when he says something that doesn't fit your narrative. Is it typical that someone who offers nothing but pseudoscience has over 100 peer reviewed articles published in professional journals?  

In the quote above it said "What he is not, however, is the author of any lasting work of scholarship, the originator of any important idea, or a public intellectual of any scientific credibility or moral seriousness."

^that is an outright lie

For example: publications unrelated to his popular material

Dr. Oz was a prominent cardiac surgeon of note as well, but previous work is only illustrative of the decline in intellectual rigor to his current role hawking reiki, detoxs, and other snake oil: Peterson is the pop psych equivalent. There's a broader debate to be had about the scientific rigour in the field of psychology, but that's not functional here. The academic material you reference is not pertinent to the criticism: we already know that Peterson can produce content that meets the requirements to be published, but his popular materials, such 12 Rules for Life and Maps of Meaning are not up to this standard.  Just because he can produce scholarship, or can generate ideas, or is a public figure, does not mean his work is lasting, important, credible, or serious. 

I referenced more comprehensive critiques exactly because there is no need to repeat those critique's here. The defense you linked to is as nebulous and poorly formed as any of Peterson's own material. Peterson is fundamentally an accidental phenomenon, seeking media attention for being a dick to a marginalized student, to get a platform for his pop psychology books, and relying on his silver tongue to never quite get pinned down or committed to any idea in an interview. He's always misunderstood, and any of his fans can identify with any number of ideologies, because what he advocates for is ill-defined, flexible, and constantly changing.
.

Psychological entropy may be seen as a measure of ‘loss of perspective’ in awareness. Maximum perspective is when I can see what I am looking at from all possible angles, and not get trapped in any of them. A loss of perspective occurs when I fixate on one way of looking at the world to the exclusion of all the others. Therefore, if I fly into a rage about some relatively trivial inconvenience, and completely lose the ability to laugh at myself and my predicament, then this is a classic manifestation of psychological entropy. There has been a dramatic collapse in the information content of the system.

FosterK wrote:
Dr. Oz was a prominent cardiac surgeon of note as well, but previous work is only illustrative of the decline in intellectual rigor to his current role hawking reiki, detoxs, and other snake oil: Peterson is the pop psych equivalent. There's a broader debate to be had about the scientific rigour in the field of psychology, but that's not functional here. The academic material you reference is not pertinent to the criticism: we already know that Peterson can produce content that meets the requirements to be published, but his popular materials, such 12 Rules for Life and Maps of Meaning are not up to this standard.  Just because he can produce scholarship, or can generate ideas, or is a public figure, does not mean his work is lasting, important, credible, or serious. 

I referenced more comprehensive critiques exactly because there is no need to repeat those critique's here. The defense you linked to is as nebulous and poorly formed as any of Peterson's own material. Peterson is fundamentally an accidental phenomenon, seeking media attention for being a dick to a marginalized student, to get a platform for his pop psychology books, and relying on his silver tongue to never quite get pinned down or committed to any idea in an interview. He's always misunderstood, and any of his fans can identify with any number of ideologies, because what he advocates for is ill-defined, flexible, and constantly changing.
.

Have you read his books or do you rely on second hand information?  Who was this student?  He became prominent for his opposition to Bill C-16 not for being a "dick" to students.

T R I G G E R  W A R N I N G ! ! !