Looks like he's not a fan! Which is wierd because I imagine his daily internal Monologue sounds something like this....
I'm seriously going to claim that the majority of his followers aren't paying that attention, he knows it, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
You didn't know about that? Next you'll be telling me that you don't know that witches are real! More real than real actually, because the are part of the meta-narrative substrate or whatever... woo. I love how he explains clearly the moral message in Beauty and the Beast, then proceeds to say that the yucky SJW Disney movies fail because if you can clearly explain the moral message of art then it is propaganda. Rubin, in typical fashion, looks like a puppy staring at a television. Poor guy doesn't have a clue what's going on, then tries to join in by saying that his idea of great art is Logan. And he's part of the intellectual dark web!
I don't think the majority of his critics are paying that level of attention either. The majority of people are dumb. In other news: sky blue, water wet.
Thats completly not true, the majority of people are exactly average, because that's what average means......
I know right! Whenever he posts these massive twitter snips I can't get past the ridiculous amount of icons. I thought I was the only one!
It's the OCD. I just wanna, swipe down and start going through all of DPs alerts.. Been a Samsung sucker for since Note 1 (lol) Yeah. A bit better...
In a purely statistical sense, sure. When it's a social comparison however, frame of reference is important.
You'll have to clarify that for me? Are you trying to make out you have above average intelligence? Or are you just trying to call all of JP's critics dumb in comparison to you? Because without further proof, both are just like your opinion man...... Edit: also both are not the sort of argument which reflect well on you..... People who say" I'm a very stable genius" tend not to be either.... Ps, this is a good read, it's the reverse of dunning kruger. Illusory superiority - Wikipedia
Mitch said was that he doesn't think the majority of people who give any credit to Peterson are exercising their critical thinking skills in considering the context and specificity of language of Peterson's statements, or literally "that the majority of his followers aren't paying that attention." And yet I've not seen the majority of his critics exercise much in the way of critical thinking skills, but instead devolve into purposefully ignoring context, word choice, and trying to twist what he says and focusing on what they wish he'd said, because they want to paint him as a villain. Now I think some of the things he says are wrong, but I think trying to twist his words and ignore context, word choice, and a larger body of discussion is certainly more wrong. I mean hell Mitch actually tried to use my attention the tweet you posted, in the larger context of other discussions Peterson has had, and paying attention to specific word choice, as "mental gymnastics," as confirmation that somehow critical thinking, in this case actually paying attention to a larger body of work and specific language, choice is purposeful self-delusion. I would not want to live in a world where people expect you to read something with that level of un-critical thinking.
Just a small quibble: That isn't necessarily what average means. There are 3 types of averages, and not stating the type is one way ads or influence pieces will try to mislead (not saying you are doing that). Your image is a bell curve distribution, which has certain properties, one of which is that all 3 types of average are equal. These values, for instance, would not fit a bell curve distribution: 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 7, 8 The 3 types of averages, and their value for this set of values, is: Mean: 4 (Sum of the values measured divided by the number of values measured.) Mode: 1 (Most frequently occurring value) Median: 3 (Value which, when all the measured values are sorted, falls in the middle.) If these measurements were the strength (on a 10-scale, say) of a negative reaction to a drug, for instance, the company ('A' Pharma) could claim "on average negative reactions were mild", and if sued for false advertising, could say something like "the mode of this data is 1, therefore our statement that the average reaction is mild was not untrue". A competitor of theirs ('B' pharma) might measure: 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 (fewer trials) And claim that, on average, the reaction to their drug is milder than the reactions to 'A' Pharma's drug. (If they had access to 'A' pharma's testing data.) If sued for false advertising, they could say something like "when comparing mean strength of negative reaction, ours mean is 3 and theirs if 4, thus ours is indeed milder on average."
Your completly right, but IQ is on a bell curve, and as you say, all three types of averages are all the same average on a bell curve/normal distribution, so I was correct in this specific case, about IQ, but if we were talking about something without "normal distribution" then It wouldn't necessarily be correct!
