Jordan Peterson says Ontario psychologist licence may be suspended over public statements

[WyattEarp]

From which she derives a significant income. And which is presented under false pretences. But it's not grifting. Of course not.

Okay fine. If I use that definition, then I would say Rachel Maddow is a grifter. I don't mind if you mention Tucker Carlson.

I still think Rachel and Tucker are simply entertainers, but a lot of people take them at face value.

By the way, did anyone see that CNN is considering replacing their prime time line-up with a comedic news program?

 

[dirtyharry555]

CNN... that's a network I haven't heard about in awhile.

But I have to give them their due. Something remarkable happened recently. I saw one of the dumbest "news" hosts, Don Lemon, actually be truthful for once. Is he still on CNN? If he keeps talking like he did in this clip, he might get fired.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598379684190105600

 

[Frankfooter]

There are truth seekers who are curious about the world and how it works no matter where that takes them. Then there are truth keepers who believe they know and defend the truth. No one fits into one category all the time, but you do see the dominant characteristics in some.

Truth keepers can also come at things from right wing dogma. Several of the posters labeled "right wing" here are fairly pragmatic in my opinion. Truth keepers don't care for pragmatism either. In the TERB stew, pragmatists just interfere with the truth.

Truth keeping seems like an oppressive burden to shoulder while navigating this world.

A truth seeker would have checked out the CPO findings, standards and comments directly and without people feeding them links here.
A truth keeper would believe they know the truth and don't need outside confirmations like facts or evidence. Which makes them more 'faith based'.

 

[WyattEarp]

I'm curious. Does anyone suspect that some of the progressive members have more than one handle here on TERB?

I've noticed that in the last several months some progressive newcomers have emerged and often they sound exactly like well-known established members. Now that would be a potential ban on MERB and other sites. Here on TERB it's pretty much anything goes.

One might ask why would anyone bother. It's simple. The echo chamber gets bigger and louder.

 

[WyattEarp]

Bill Maher recently said about that: either give that land back or shut the fuck up...

Surprised to see this posted from you. You're now a Nazi. Congrats.

Just for kicks. Nazi cowboys! Yee heil!!

 

[xix]

Some of the people on this thread should be checked out by Jordan Peterson.

To much sea lioning.

 

[WyattEarp]

A truth seeker would have checked out the CPO findings, standards and comments directly and without people feeding them links here.
A truth keeper would believe they know the truth and don't need outside confirmations like facts or evidence. Which makes them more 'faith based'.

Frank, what you clearly won't understand or more aptly allow is that I have likely read more links and watched more videos in this thread than most everyone here. I simply have not seen compelling evidence that Peterson has violated COP professionals standards other than the COP says so. If someone can point to some specific standard, I am all ears.

I find Peterson outspoken and political. I'm not always in agreement. However, even if the COP disagreed with his opining on vaccines, mask mandates, etc. you have to ask are the Canadian physician associations sanctioning doctors with similar views. Perhaps, the COP has a firm position on the trans community. Again, all ears.

You can't compel anyone to give credence to your cited references. That's life on TERB.

This is the post below in entire context where you seemed to lock on to me out of all the posters here in support of Peterson. Saying "I just don't know" is a figure of speech that projects magnanimity and openness to hearing different opinions. However, it would be a mistake to consider it ignorance.

There might be some bias of a social nature. He's not as flexible on social issues as some would prefer. I think everyone brings some bias.

I just don't know if anything he says or advocates is really black and white a violation of his profession. Certainly haven't seen anything too specific from his detractors here. But you see, that's just my bias as opposed to there's.

Having said that, how many here have called out Peterson's making a buck (a lot of bucks). Couldn't there possibly be quite a few in the profession and the COP Board who don't like Peterson's popularity and his viewpoints based on personal bias?

 

[mandrill]

Frank, what you clearly won't understand or more aptly allow is that I have likely read more links and watched more videos in this thread than most everyone here. I simply have not seen compelling evidence that Peterson has violated COP professionals standards other than the COP says so. If someone can point to some specific standard, I am all ears.

I find Peterson outspoken and political. I'm not always in agreement. However, even if the COP disagreed with his opining on vaccines, mask mandates, etc. you have to ask are the Canadian physician associations sanctioning doctors with similar views. Perhaps, the COP has a firm position on the trans community. Again, all ears.

You can't compel anyone to give credence to your cited references. That's life on TERB.

This is the post below in entire context where you seemed to lock on to me out of all the posters here in support of Peterson. Saying "I just don't know" is a figure of speech that projects magnanimity and openness to hearing different opinions. However, it would be a mistake to consider it ignorance.

So in other words..... you know more about Psychologist Ethics than the Psychologist Ethics people do. Because you've done your own research.

Good to know.

 

[mandrill]

mandrill is of the persuasion that men and women are identical in all respects other than physical strength.

Temperament, personality, interests, mating strategies, are identical.

I didn't really say this, did I?

But have your little joke with your buddy, Earp.

 

[mandrill]

I'm curious. Does anyone suspect that some of the progressive members have more than one handle here on TERB?

I've noticed that in the last several months some progressive newcomers have emerged and often they sound exactly like well-known established members. Now that would be a potential ban on MERB and other sites. Here on TERB it's pretty much anything goes.

One might ask why would anyone bother. It's simple. The echo chamber gets bigger and louder.

We have the same debate about you guys. And one of your buddies was indeed outed by the mods a few back with several different handles at once, wherein he would frequently agree with himself and gang tackle anyone he didn't like.

We're pretty sure that you're a one off though, Earp. You have your own.... style.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frank, what you clearly won't understand or more aptly allow is that I have likely read more links and watched more videos in this thread than most everyone here. I simply have not seen compelling evidence that Peterson has violated COP professionals standards other than the COP says so. If someone can point to some specific standard, I am all ears.

I find Peterson outspoken and political. I'm not always in agreement. However, even if the COP disagreed with his opining on vaccines, mask mandates, etc. you have to ask are the Canadian physician associations sanctioning doctors with similar views. Perhaps, the COP has a firm position on the trans community. Again, all ears.

You can't compel anyone to give credence to your cited references. That's life on TERB.

This is the post below in entire context where you seemed to lock on to me out of all the posters here in support of Peterson. Saying "I just don't know" is a figure of speech that projects magnanimity and openness to hearing different opinions. However, it would be a mistake to consider it ignorance.

Yes, 'I did my own research'. The hallmark of the 'free thinker'.
Just as long as it doesn't include the actual charges, evidence and rules posted by the CPO.

I am very familiar with this type of 'research' here.
And its totally fair to call it willful ignorance if you were given the opportunity to check what the CPO standards are, what they say that Peterson did that broke those standards and and how they decided on what punishment and then you chose not to read those posts. More so when you post 'Certainly haven't seen anything specific' when Mandrill, I and others have posted the specifics.

 

[WyattEarp]

But have your little joke with your buddy, Earp.

mandrill, I hardly know this guy and hardly interact with him other than apparently he's dirty. You're the guy who everything that Frank posts simply because it challenging me. I'm not sure that is really is good for the mandrill brand, but hey its your brand.

Here I have an idea for you. It's kind of out there, but what the heck. Why don't you just respond to dirtyharry that you believe men and women are inherently different and they generally exhibit different emotional and psychological characteristics?

 

[WyattEarp]

So in other words..... you know more about Psychologist Ethics than the Psychologist Ethics people do. Because you've done your own research.

Good to know.

Yeah, people disagreeing about the COP's actions is kind of the theme of the thread.

 

[mandrill]

Yeah, people disagreeing that the COP is acting fairly is kind of the theme of the thread.

But - let me put this politely - most of us agree that the CPO is the best judge of what ethical rules are appropriate and when they are breached. Because they know more about the field than you. Right?

You can join your buddies by saying that's not fair and Doc Pee has the right to absolute free speech because that's how society should be run. That's a little more intellectually presentable. It's still pretty weak, but there's a small chance the court might actually buy it.

 

[mandrill]

Yes, I read this. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lZxY3I4FzzUAYG6gTQoRkcpqt04ObqEq/view

IMHO, the CPO standards in this case are very weak. First of all, none of these people who complained were JP's clients. I doubt the CPO would care if the Psychologist who was being being sanctioned was a left leaning Psychologist.

For example, if this left leaning Psychologist, appeared on Rosemary Barton Live, and said that, "Trump was a loser", then chances are the CPO wouldn't do anything. IMHO, the CPO is a hypocritical left leaning college.

But if LLP said "Trump was a loser", that's an off the cuff opinion. Not something with any professional weight behind it.

 

[mandrill]

mandrill, I hardly know this guy and hardly interact with him other than apparently he's dirty. You're the guy who View attachment 203980 everything that Frank posts simply because it challenging me. I'm not sure that is really is good for the mandrill brand, but hey its your brand.

Here I have an idea for you. It's kind of out there, but what the heck. Why don't you just respond to dirtyharry that you believe men and women are different and they inherently exhibit different emotional and psychological characteristics?

Frank has made a number of extremely good points in this thread.

 

[Frankfooter]

Yes, I read this. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lZxY3I4FzzUAYG6gTQoRkcpqt04ObqEq/view

IMHO, the CPO standards in this case are very weak. First of all, none of these people who complained were JP's clients. I doubt the CPO would care if the Psychologist who was being being sanctioned was a left leaning Psychologist.

For example, if this left leaning Psychologist, appeared on Rosemary Barton Live, and said that, "Trump was a loser", then chances are the CPO wouldn't do anything. IMHO, the CPO is a hypocritical left leaning college.

Thank you Mitchell, for taking the time to check the sources and respond.

As far as I know Peterson hasn't been taking clients for years. Mandrill thinks he did early in his career, I haven't checked but assumed that he went the tenured prof route instead.
So no, there are no patients to complain at all.

The CPO isn't censuring Peterson for political views, this is about his tweets that demean groups that would be possible patients for therapy.
Fat shaming, insults about trans, insults about women and the tweets mentioned on the report.
The one suggesting someone kill themself , 'you're free to leave', would be malpractice to say to a patient and for the board to continue to license someone who might say that to a patient?

Those are the attitudes that psychologists are there to deal with, not to further.

 

[WyattEarp]

We're pretty sure that you're a one off though, Earp. You have your own.... style.

Same to you as well. There are a few guys here where I'm like I heard something just like that in very similar phrasing from someone else somewhere in this forum.

 

[WyattEarp]

Frank has made a number of extremely good points in this thread.

I actually gave Frank some kudos early on for explaining why Peterson is disturbing to many including those in his profession. Frank's just pissed off that I dismissed one of his summary postings from the COP. I really didn't get anything from it. I've read (and watched) more and still didn't get anything.

"Number of extremely good points" I think is a stretch. Frank might likely be one of the previously noted for sealioning. As I always joke, Frank punishes me for taking the time to read his stuff and interacting with him. I don't want to unduly criticize Frank further in this thread.

If people want to base their argument on the COP's expertise, there's not much that can be said. But one should allow themselves a path of retreat. No one knows where this is going to end up. Me thinks if Peterson pursues this, keeps his license and doesn't do the prescribed re-education, the COP will try to find a way to save face. That could be the savior of this idea here that the COP knows best. For me, it might look like Peterson-haters found a way to move the goalposts after the ball has been kicked.

 

[Pleasure Hound]

Many of us enjoy listening to your turds here.

I had no idea that my turds were just so interesting....more interesting than Shapiro, I am sure of.....