Jordan Peterson is not an evolutionary biologist.

You are unclear on why a pseudo-intellectual excuse for bigotry has gained a following?

Because it justifies a self-serving worldview?

This is catching on somewhat beyond the usual crowd of bigots.

yeah defining (or searching for) truth that is useful is some shady thinking right there. We need less of this kind of attitude, not more that's for sure!

Speaking as a scientist, we actually do need less of it. Much of the basic scientific knowledge from the Renaissance, etc would NEVER get funded these days because the government/industry is focused on what will be useful (ie profitable) rather than expanding our understanding. You pretty much have to know what the answer might be to your hypothesis and show that you'll be able to demonstrate that before you can get cash. Negative results used to inform us as much as positive results, but try publishing a "well, we can rule out gene X as being linked to cancer" paper...

He's not saying truths that are useful, he's saying truth IS what's useful.
So, if you find a lie that gets you ahead, and that's useful to you, hey, that becomes true now.
Why define truth that way?
To let religion in.

I remember at the first company I worked for, the CEO telling the story of how he got his PhD. His thesis was to answer a question something like "Can one predict where a metal structural member will fail by analyzing the microscopic increases in strain that occur as it is put under increasing tension?" His conclusion? No, you can't.

But that IS actually useful information to have. If you prove that something can't be done, it prevents other researchers from going down a blind alley in the future.

So, I started looking at some of this Canadian professor's videos because of this thread. Just what do you claim he has said or done which would in any way qualify as bigoted?

http://lolmythesis.com/

I haven't seen him say anything remotely like that though I admit I just started looking with this thread. Do you have a link? I would prefer a primary source which I could see for myself not some link to someone else's interpritation of what he supposedly said.

Well, the idea he's quoting isn't a reduction fo truth, just an attempt to define truth through viability. I.e., is you theory of steel beams true? You'll find out if you build something out of steel beams while following that theory, and see if it holds. That's not entirely unreasonable.

Doesn't make the rest of his argument any better though.

Time index 8:11 in the video in post #7.

Jordan Peterson is still not an evolutionary biologist

He has some interesting ideas, which led me to buy his book, "12 Rules for Life." I've barely touched it, though. He's a windbag. Too many words for too little substance.

Long winded and boring is how he hides the crazy.
Coincidentally, it's also how The Bible hides the crazy.

In which case engineering firms have a vested interest in that negative result. It is likely to save them money and man hours in terms of wasted effort and potential lawsuits.

Pharmaceutical firms have no equivalent agenda. A result which suggests a particular product does not have a significant effect often suggests they've already wasted that investment and thus should be disregarded until they can produce a study which gives them a more favourable result.

See olanzapine.

Jordan Peterson recently had to go to rehab for pill addiction because his wife was diagnosed with cancer.

Now, I'm sorry his wife got cancer, but the title of Peterson's shitty book is "12 Rules For Life: An Antidote To Chaos".
The rules failed.

We all have bad chaotic shit happen in our lives, and we all don't become pill poppers over it.
I went through a rough patch from the mid-00's to 2012 where I had a relative die almost every fucking year.
I didn't become a pill popper.
Peterson did though.
Peterson's wife didn't even die, she miraculously recovered!
Peterson went full pill popper when he got a little bit of chaos in his life.

That means, his stupid 12 rules aren't the antidote to chaos.

He's a fraud.
If this doesn't prove it to his fanboys, nothing will.
Of course, nothing will.
They're Borg.

Just thought it needed to go on the ever growing list of why he's a fraudulent grifting piece of shit.

He still seems to speak a lot of sense and is a generally thoughtful fellow. I can see why the crazies hate him. They usually hate truth tellers.

So basically you’re understanding of an everyday junkie that does drugs because they’ve had trauma in their lives but if it’s someone that you don’t like you sneer at them and call them out

Honestly that post wasn’t a very good look

Personally, I am happy for him that he recognized he had a potential problem and dealt with it early. It was a very mature decision on his part. I hope his wife recovers from the cancer.

I'd be more caring if he didn't look down on drug addicts before this.
It's Rush Limbaugh all over again.
If this gives him more empathy towards addicts, I'd forgive the shit out of him.
But we all know that's not what's going to happen.
If a conservative bigmouth gains empathy, they lose their fans.
No, I predict he's going to blame it on the medical establishment, and tie it into socialism somehow.

You sure do like making shit up.

There could be multiple reasons for someone to become addicted to pills beyond the stated reason. Your limited understanding of drug use and addiction is quite telling. Also @Ten Lubak said it better and is 100% correct.

I have to say for someone who's been reliant on opioids in the past this made uncomfortably judgemental reading.

Judgmental?
Maybe.
Stirring up bullying, hate, and possible suicide?
No, that's Peterson and his anti-trans stuff with his lies about Bill C-16.
I'll sleep better than he ever will.

Yeah, you'd think he'd consider himself lucky to be among the few who are more resistant than average to addictions.

Ok, sleep well.