If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

This is a welcome piece, and it lays out a lot of the methodological problems with race science. The resistance to genetic explanations aren't entirely political, despite what the race scientists proclaim. There's actually a lot of bad science in those studies.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/02/the-unwelcome-revival-of-race-science

A second plank of the race science case goes like this: human bodies continued to evolve, at least until recently – with different groups developing different skin colours, predispositions to certain diseases, and things such as lactose tolerance. So why wouldn’t human brains continue evolving, too?

The problem here is that race scientists are not comparing like with like. Most of these physical changes involve single gene mutations, which can spread throughout a population in a relatively short span of evolutionary time. By contrast, intelligence – even the rather specific version measured by IQ – involves a network of potentially thousands of genes, which probably takes at least 100 millennia to evolve appreciably.

Given that so many genes, operating in different parts of the brain, contribute in some way to intelligence, it is hardly surprising that there is scant evidence of cognitive advance, at least over the last 100,000 years. The American palaeoanthropologist Ian Tattersall, widely acknowledged as one of the world’s leading experts on Cro-Magnons, has said that long before humans left Africa for Asia and Europe, they had already reached the end of the evolutionary line in terms of brain power. “We don’t have the right conditions for any meaningful biological evolution of the species,” he told an interviewer in 2000.

In fact, when it comes to potential differences in intelligence between groups, one of the remarkable dimensions of the human genome is how little genetic variation there is. DNA research conducted in 1987 suggested a common, African ancestor for all humans alive today: “mitochondrial Eve”, who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because of this relatively recent (in evolutionary terms) common ancestry, human beings share a remarkably high proportion of their genes compared to other mammals. The single subspecies of chimpanzee that lives in central Africa, for example, has significantly more genetic variation than does the entire human race.

No one has successfully isolated any genes “for” intelligence at all, and claims in this direction have turned to dust when subjected to peer review. As the Edinburgh University cognitive ageing specialist Prof Ian Deary put it, “It is difficult to name even one gene that is reliably associated with normal intelligence in young, healthy adults.” Intelligence doesn’t come neatly packaged and labelled on any single strand of DNA.

 

[Dak]

Afaik it's generally accepted that there's no intelligence gene, and genes rarely do one thing. Rather combinations of on/off genes that are present lead to what could be considered more emergent properties, one of which being whatever you want to call the cognitive performance we measure with IQ tests. Mutations have obviously occurred across many genes. Taking a distributed view of genetic intelligence, wouldn't it make sense that the multiple mutations/differences would also contribute to the variance across races in intelligence? There is variance within and between races. When we refer to variance between, you're looking at mean differences that don't take into account variance within. Graphically, this looks like the offset normal or Gaussian distribution curves. These curves can have radically different variance within, with either "fat tails", meaning higher variance, or clustering around the mean. Even if means perfectly lined up, you could still wind up with markedly difference results based on variance, since it's the right tail that is mostly responsible for humanity's advancement across all disciplines.

 

[Einherjar86]

Afaik it's generally accepted that there's no intelligence gene, and genes rarely do one thing. Rather combinations of on/off genes that are present lead to what could be considered more emergent properties, one of which being whatever you want to call the cognitive performance we measure with IQ tests. Mutations have obviously occurred across many genes. Taking a distributed view of genetic intelligence, wouldn't it make sense that the multiple mutations/differences would also contribute to the variance across races in intelligence? There is variance within and between races. When we refer to variance between, you're looking at mean differences that don't take into account variance within. Graphically, this looks like the offset normal or Gaussian distribution curves. These curves can have radically different variance within, with either "fat tails", meaning higher variance, or clustering around the mean. Even if means perfectly lined up, you could still wind up with markedly difference results based on variance, since it's the right tail that is mostly responsible for humanity's advancement across all disciplines.

If there's no intelligence gene, but intelligence is rather an emergent effect of various mutations across genes that inform other behaviors, then I'm not sure it makes sense to attribute variances in intelligence to genetic variations. One point the author made is that people of a particular race can have more in common (genetically) with the variation of another race than with their own, yet not exhibit the behavioral intelligence of that race (i.e. the one with whom they share genetic similarities). Given this, I don't see how intelligence derives primarily or even significantly from a genetic basis.

Furthermore, if we're saying that different races vary in genetic mutation due to their environmental conditions, then I don't see how we can differentiate between intelligence variation as a genetically-conditioned phenomenon versus a socially-conditioned phenomenon. If there's no intelligence gene, then there's no way to pinpoint the source (and it seems unlikely that it would be genetic, in that case). I think that the antagonism between "evolutionary" and "socially-constructed" has done more harm than good; that is, the distinction itself has taken on too political of a life to be significant.

I like how the author indicated that suggesting race is a "social construct" doesn't mean there aren't different groups who share genetic similarities, or that these groups can't be scientifically studied. Even if intelligence is socially-conditioned, that doesn't mean it's insusceptible to scientific inquiry.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Just because it takes a thousand planks to build a bridge doesn't mean that removing one won't compromise the structure. The author has a narrow view of what genes do and how they interact. The author is even wrong with his specific example; skin color is not determined by a single gene, despite a change in a single gene being sufficient to determine the skin color. Lighter skin is a result of decreased expression of melanin in skin cells, but the physiological process of said expression is not a single switch. It is a series of multiple switches, and a mutation at switch #1 or switch #4 could potentially mean a similar phenotype of lighter skin, despite being effected by a different gene. Caucasians developed white skin an estimated 10k years ago iirc, and I'd imagine that whatever mutation that causes Asian people to have lighter skin as well was at a different locus. (Even if that's not the case and it was coincidentally the same for both ethnic groups, I definitely know that the blue eyes of Europeans and of Australoids are due to entirely different genes being mutated.)

 

[Einherjar86]

To be fair, the author doesn't actually say that skin color specifically is the result of a single gene mutation. He gives a list of various morphological characteristics and says that "most" of them involve single gene mutations. He doesn't explicitly say that skin color is one of them, although he does include it in his list.

While the author may be reductive (almost a necessity in a piece this short that deals with a topic this complex), I don't think anything you've said refutes his major criticisms of race science, although I may be misunderstanding you.

 

[Dak]

I think you'd be hardpressed to say that the Maoiest regime was less oppressive in China than any form of colonialism in Africa, yet we remove Maoism from China in even a halfassed form and the Mandarins are killing it. Conversely, colonialism has been removed or rolled back in Africa and things have worsened in many respects in many instances. Separately, you'd be hardpressed to Jews had it "good" throughout Western history, yet they continue to dominate/are overrepresented in academica, banking, media, etc. We can blame it on genetics, we can blame it on culture, we can blame it on a combination, but nothing in history suggests that both all races and all cultures are relatively equivalent. There are measurable differences, they originate somewhere, and they have very stark material and ethical variance.

 

[Einherjar86]

nothing in history suggests that both all races and all cultures are relatively equivalent. There are measurable differences, they originate somewhere, and they have very stark material and ethical variance.

No one's saying there aren't measurable differences, and the author of that piece says as much.

 

[Dak]

No one's saying there aren't measurable differences, and the author of that piece says as much.

By title alone, finding differences is sold as unethical. It specifically raised South Africa as an example of why such investigation is bad and confounded, and attacks Jewish scientists as being bigots. That's anti-Semitic! Clearly an unethical bias.

The bigger problem with the piece is the author is lying at worst or obfuscating/showing ignorance at best:

The problem was that most of his identical twins were adopted into the same kinds of middle-class families. So it was hardly surprising that they ended up with similar IQs. In the relatively few cases where twins were adopted into families of different social classes and education levels, there ended up being huge disparities in IQ – in one case a 20-point gap; in another, 29 points, or the difference between “dullness” and “superior intelligence” in the parlance of some IQ classifications. In other words, where the environments differed substantially, nurture seems to have been a far more powerful influence than nature on IQ.

A 30 point difference isn't enough to make this difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) is pretty much the standard IQ test at this point, and has been for some years now. The scale runs as follows:

130 and above Very Superior
120–129 Superior
110–119 High Average
90–109 Average
80–89 Low Average
70–79 Borderline
69 and below Extremely Low

The biggest boost from "dullness" (whatever that is), which would be at best "Borderline", at 30pts would be "Average" (Even low average would only get to high average). I don't know if Bouchard was using an older version of the WAIS, but neither does the writer apparently, since there were no links (or he doesn't want to show them). Given that changes are supposed to be shown over time, I would assume relatively recent IQ comparisons would be using the WAIS-III or WAIS-IV.

He also lies about IQ tests testing a "sliver":

Yet people have not changed genetically since then. Instead, Flynn noted, they have become more exposed to abstract logic, which is the sliver of intelligence that IQ tests measure. Some populations are more exposed to abstraction than others, which is why their average IQ scores differ. Flynn found that the different averages between populations were therefore entirely environmental.

This finding has been reinforced by the changes in average IQ scores observed in some populations. The most rapid has been among Kenyan children – a rise of 26.3 points in the 14 years between 1984 and 1998, according to one study. The reason has nothing to do with genes. Instead, researchers found that, in the course of half a generation, nutrition, health and parental literacy had improved.

The only subtest on the WAIS to test verbal abstraction is the "Similarities" test.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale

Information & Vocabulary are based on English/Western history canon (although not specifically history about western hist), but not abstract. The rest test either symbolic reasoning or numeric based memory. Separately, the Wechsler Memory Scale tests numeric, symobolic, and linguistic memory if one has trouble with numeric memory only.

 

[Dak]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._research_infects_us_legal_system_136423.html

A 2008 paper, in which he linked “undetected serial rapists” with a propensity to commit serial and “crossover” acts of violence such as interpersonal attacks unrelated to sex, was shown to have provided no basis for such a generalization. His assertions, allegedly supported by a study he co-authored in 2010, that false accusations of sexual assault are exceedingly rare, have been shown to violate basic math by counting as true cases that didn’t qualify as sexual assault, had insufficient evidence to make a determination, or were referred for prosecution but about which the outcome was unknown.


As for Lisak's vague statements about having interviewed "hundreds" of serial rapists (occasionally styled as “thousands” when others talk about him), in truth no evidence exists that Lisak has interviewed any “undetected rapists,” serial or otherwise, since his dissertation research 30 years ago.

His claimed years of research turned out to be a handful of actual research publications, reviews full of editorializing about others’ research, rehashing of the dissertation he completed in 1989, and a website that deceptively merges that dissertation’s 1980s-era research on 12 college students with unrelated data from the 2002 paper on repeat offenders.

 

[Einherjar86]

By title alone, finding differences is sold as unethical. It specifically raised South Africa as an example of why such investigation is bad and confounded, and attacks Jewish scientists as being bigots. That's anti-Semitic! Clearly an unethical bias.

I'd encourage you to resist that assumption. The article is interested in the shortcomings of race science, specifically the science of genetics as it applies to racial differences. The author isn't denying that there are differences in average intelligence between races; he's simply saying that there is no empirical evidence that the root cause of those differences is genetic. A scientific perspective that privileges empiricism shouldn't jump to certain conclusions based on speculative connections between general racial homogeneity and statistical commonalities. The proper response should be that while genetics could explain these differences, there is no way to empirically verify such connections. Therefore, it's irresponsible to promote such a theory based on current studies/research.

The studies that have been cited as supporting race science have also been subject to mild, if not gross, misinterpretation. I think that's the point of the article.

I know you want to wave this away as "virtue signaling"; but my impression is that it's impossible to make an argument even comparable to this without you criticizing it as virtue-signaling, which is why I find your comments suspect.

A 30 point difference isn't enough to make this difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) is pretty much the standard IQ test at this point, and has been for some years now. The scale runs as follows:

The biggest boost from "dullness" (whatever that is), which would be at best "Borderline", at 30pts would be "Average" (Even low average would only get to high average). I don't know if Bouchard was using an older version of the WAIS, but neither does the writer apparently, since there were no links (or he doesn't want to show them). Given that changes are supposed to be shown over time, I would assume relatively recent IQ comparisons would be using the WAIS-III or WAIS-IV.

"Dullness" would be low average. So he's not incorrect:

http://www.wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html

Lewis Terman (1916) developed the original notion of IQ and proposed this scale for classifying IQ scores:

• Over 140 - Genius or near genius
  
  
• 120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence
  
  
• 110 - 119 - Superior intelligence
  
  
• 90 - 109 - Normal or average intelligence
  
  
• 80 - 89 - Dullness
  
  
• 70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency
  
  
• Under 70 - Definite feeble-mindedness

WAIS uses the same intervals as Terman.

He also lies about IQ tests testing a "sliver":

The only subtest on the WAIS to test verbal abstraction is the "Similarities" test.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale

Information & Vocabulary are based on English/Western history canon (although not specifically history about western hist), but not abstract. The rest test either symbolic reasoning or numeric based memory. Separately, the Wechsler Memory Scale tests numeric, symobolic, and linguistic memory if one has trouble with numeric memory only.

Again, this is not true Dak.

The Similarities test assesses abstract verbal reasoning yes; but the comprehension portion assesses the "ability to express abstract social conventions," and matrix reasoning assesses "nonverbal abstract problem-solving." The verbal and perceptual categories both test for abstract logic. Memory and processing don't, but these also can only be tested via the application of abstractions. The test is very much invested in abstract thinking.

 

[Dak]

I'd encourage you to resist that assumption. The article is interested in the shortcomings of race science, specifically the science of genetics as it applies to racial differences. The author isn't denying that there are differences in average intelligence between races; he's simply saying that there is no empirical evidence that the root cause of those differences is genetic. A scientific perspective that privileges empiricism shouldn't jump to certain conclusions based on speculative connections between general racial homogeneity and statistical commonalities. The proper response should be that while genetics could explain these differences, there is no way to empirically verify such connections. Therefore, it's irresponsible to promote such a theory based on current studies/research.

The studies that have been cited as supporting race science have also been subject to mild, if not gross, misinterpretation. I think that's the point of the article.

I know you want to wave this away as "virtue signaling"; but my impression is that it's impossible to make an argument even comparable to this without you criticizing it as virtue-signaling, which is why I find your comments suspect.

Well I'm not saying you are virtue signaling here, and there is certainly evidence for IQ gains from things like better nutrition, stable home environment, and quality education. But the author likely is signlaing(I mean, he is a "journalist" - his job is almost entirely signaling), especially considering he wrote a book on the topic. Since the sort of "Race science" he's probably familiar with from his book writing about is about 100 years out of date, the following is probably explained by that:

"Dullness" would be low average. So he's not incorrect:

http://www.wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html

WAIS uses the same intervals as Terman.

Terman helped develop the Stanford-Binet revision of the first IQ test back in 1916, and the use of "Dullness" is fairly obsolete. The current version of the S-B IQ test uses "Low Average" for 80-89.

Again, this is not true Dak.

The Similarities test assesses abstract verbal reasoning yes; but the comprehension portion assesses the "ability to express abstract social conventions," and matrix reasoning assesses "nonverbal abstract problem-solving." The verbal and perceptual categories both test for abstract logic. Memory and processing don't, but these also can only be tested via the application of abstractions. The test is very much invested in abstract thinking.

The memory test is literally just repeating series of numbers back to the testor, and the processing speed tests involve things like crossing out items the test says to, and these items are mixed in sporadically with other items. Vocabulary is testing memory of and/or exposure to words. Information tests the same thing but on random factoids in basic science, history, etc rather than words. Calling these "abstract" is fairly tortured imo. I don't have items from the Comprehension test memorized, but I obviously couldn't share them anyway if I did. However, Comprehension is not even a core test, but rather available as a substitute or for further testing if one is concerned about performance on certain other tests. Matrix Reasoning does test abstract reasoning, but doing poorly on that test can't be blamed on poor schooling or something. We don't have classes on shape series afaik. Still, we are talking about 2 tests out of a total of 10 if we include both verbal and symbol abstraction. 1/5 of the total test, not "all of it", which is what the author asserted:

abstract logic, which is the sliver of intelligence that IQ tests measure.

 

[Einherjar86]

Most of this feels like interpretation to me. "Dullness" corresponds to the same interval as "low average," so I don't think that's an issue. As far as abstract thought in the test goes, it really boils down to how narrowly we choose to define "abstract." You seem to suggest that semantic knowledge doesn't rely on abstract thought; but I'm not sure I agree (meaning itself always involves abstraction, in my opinion, even if we associate such abstraction with practical application). Vocabulary is almost always abstract, especially when questions ignore/downplay context.

Seeing as intelligence tests measure our aptitude for solving problems that are largely symbolic of real-world, practical issues, I'd say the test is mostly abstract.

 

[Dak]

Most of this feels like interpretation to me. "Dullness" corresponds to the same interval as "low average," so I don't think that's an issue. As far as abstract thought in the test goes, it really boils down to how narrowly we choose to define "abstract." You seem to suggest that semantic knowledge doesn't rely on abstract thought; but I'm not sure I agree (meaning itself always involves abstraction, in my opinion, even if we associate such abstraction with practical application). Vocabulary is almost always abstract, especially when questions ignore/downplay context.

Seeing as intelligence tests measure our aptitude for solving problems that are largely symbolic of real-world, practical issues, I'd say the test is mostly abstract.

Well it is interpretation, but that doesn't resolve the issue. If everything we are doing involves "abstract thought", then the IQ tests still aren't testing a "sliver" of intelligence.

 

[Einherjar86]

Everything we’re doing does involve abstract thought; but it involves abstract thought combined with the practicalities of daily life. An IQ test isolates the symbolic/conceptual abstractions that inform everyday thought.

That’s why the author suggests that the test measures the “sliver” of intelligence that involves abstract thought.

 

[rms]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mob-for-her-woes-but-maybe-she-deserves-them/

out of all the Mort shit going on, i cannot figure out why the hell this woman can't realize she was an idiot?!

 

[Dak]

Everything we’re doing does involve abstract thought; but it involves abstract thought combined with the practicalities of daily life. An IQ test isolates the symbolic/conceptual abstractions that inform everyday thought.

That’s why the author suggests that the test measures the “sliver” of intelligence that involves abstract thought.

Then what is this vast pie of total intelligence comprised of, minus the sliver of symbolic/conceptual abstract thought? I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that there's something important lying outside of g, but I'm not aware of anyone being able to consistently define it yet, much less isolate and test it.

 

[Einherjar86]

Then what is this vast pie of total intelligence comprised of, minus the sliver of symbolic/conceptual abstract thought?

Intelligence is largely behavioral. Patterns are abstract, but pattern-matching involves practice. The practical application of abstract thought is different than thought, but it's still intelligence. IQ tests can't measure the application of conceptual thought to real situations in-context. Knowing the definition of "feed" doesn't mean one accurately comprehends the phrase "feed the meter," and understanding abstract social conventions doesn't mean one intelligently applies such understanding in context.

 

[Dak]

Intelligence is largely behavioral. Patterns are abstract, but pattern-matching involves practice. The practical application of abstract thought is different than thought, but it's still intelligence. IQ tests can't measure the application of conceptual thought to real situations in-context. Knowing the definition of "feed" doesn't mean one accurately comprehends the phrase "feed the meter," and understanding abstract social conventions doesn't mean one intelligently applies such understanding in context.

Sorry about the delay in responding, school is picking up after SB finished. If I understand you accurately, you're saying that IQ tests can't measure behavioral outcomes? That's true in a technical sense, but they correlate quite well.

 

[Dak]

https://samzdat.com/2018/03/07/everything-is-going-according-to-plan/

Either way, I don’t get Jung, so I judge by what I do know: for someone who lauds Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky, Peterson fails to see Spooky Postmodernism on his own terms. It isn’t “cultural relativism” or “anti-Christianity,” it’s the opposite. They care about truth and Platonic moralism all too much. Only if you cared about truth would it be a problem for it to be relative, only with the Christian moral backing would “truth is relative, but let’s go get the oppressor” make sense. Otherwise you’d shrug. “Weird, that path failed. Whelp, time to switch majors to Finance.”

 

[Einherjar86]

Sorry about the delay in responding, school is picking up after SB finished. If I understand you accurately, you're saying that IQ tests can't measure behavioral outcomes? That's true in a technical sense, but they correlate quite well.

No need to apologize, but I'm kinda losing interest in this.

https://samzdat.com/2018/03/07/everything-is-going-according-to-plan/

Damn, his posts are always so long.

I can bash Peterson without the attack on "postmodernism." The more things I read the less impressed I am with Peterson. Nathan Robinson just published a very entertaining critique on Current Affairs, in which he actually takes Peterson's writing to task (for which I'm grateful, since there's no way I'm slogging through that shit). Long story short, he basically accuses Peterson of either promoting vapid platitudes (e.g. "be yourself," "be honest," etc.), presenting obvious ideas as profound insights, or making no sense at all. He quotes a lot in this piece, and it merely confirms my suspicions.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

A few gems:

Peterson’s writing style constantly adds convolutions to disguise the simplicity of his mind; so he won’t say “the man’s cancer metastasized,” he will say the man “fell prey to the tendency of that dread condition to metastasize.” The harder people have to work to figure out what you’re saying, the more accomplished they’ll feel when they figure it out, and the more sophisticated you will appear. Everybody wins.

A few more Petersonisms:

• “There is no being without imperfection.” No shit.

• “To share does not mean to give away something you value and get nothing back. That is instead what every child who refuses to share fears it means. To share means, properly, to initiate the process of trade.” Could mean anything, depending on interpretation: if I share my food with a hungry person, and ask for nothing in return, I may still have “gotten something.” But the maxim could also be interpreted as a defense of avarice. You can find a justification in it for whatever your worldview already is.

• “You can’t make rules for the exceptional.” By definition.

• “The future is the place of all potential monsters.” The future is the place for all potential everything.

• “People do not care whether or not they succeed; they care about whether or not they fail.” Which is apparently different.

• “People aren’t after happiness, they’re after not hurting.” I’m actually after happiness, thanks.

• “Life is suffering. That’s clear. There is no more basic, irrefutable truth.” Anything is “irrefutable” if it’s not clear what we mean by it.

• “You cannot be protected from the things that frighten you and hurt you, but if you identify with the part of your being that is responsible for transformation, then you are always the equal, or more than the equal of the things that frighten you.” Unless you are frightened of leopards, and are subsequently eaten by leopards.

Peterson will vacillate between seeming to claim that nature implies a clear and virtuous hierarchical order of things and insisting that he is not precluding criticism of the existing order of things. When he seems to be saying something fallacious (e.g. hierarchies are okay because natural) he will qualify it with a caveat that means he is saying nothing at all (e.g. natural things are sometimes okay but not always). Sam Harris, who is sympathetic to Peterson’s political stances, has pointed out in exasperation that many of Peterson’s claims about the foundations of good conduct are either unsupported or do not make sense:

Has human evolution actually selected for males that closely conform to the heroism of St. George? And is this really the oldest story we know? Aren’t there other stories just as old, reflecting quite different values that might also have adaptive advantages? And in what sense do archetypes even exist? … sn’t it obvious that most of what we consider ethical—indeed, almost everything we value—now stands outside the logic of evolution? Caring for disabled children would most likely have been maladaptive for our ancestors during any conditions of scarcity—while cannibalism recommended itself from time to time in every corner of the globe. How much inspiration should we draw from the fact that killing and eating children is also an ancient “archetype”?

There’s no good reason for turning to evolution and the animal kingdom for moral advice, yet this is what Peterson recommends. Or doesn’t. I am dreading the inevitable emails insisting that I just don’t understand Peterson, containing copious quotes in which he insists he is saying the opposite of things he seems to be saying elsewhere. (By the way, an amusing aside: a few years ago my colleague Oren Nimni and I wrote a parody of nonsensical academic grand theory called Blueprints for a Sparkling Tomorrow, which literally happens to contain a passage recommending that human beings look to lobsters for moral advice: “We therefore propose a substitute outlet for humankind’s affections: the arthropod. Anyone who has attended a lobster wedding knows full well the kind of profundity and romanticism of which these divine creatures are capable. Yet the arthropod languishes in America’s batting-cages and seafood joints, stripped of its potential and dismissed in its attempts to make edifying contributions to civic life.” Peterson’s failure to credit us borders on academic malpractice.)

To the extent Peterson has any kind of response to the charges that he is making all of this up, it’s just that… imagination is real:

What’s common across all human experience across all time… there are moral, or metaphysical, or phenomenological realities that have the same nature. You can’t see them in your life by observing them with your senses, but you can imagine them with your imagination, and sometimes the things that you imagine with your imagination are more real than the things that you see…

And when an interviewer asked him why people should believe the myths he cites, Peterson’s response is that, well, you might as well take something seriously because life is serious, damn it, and a catastrophe awaits you:

INTERVIEWER: Because a lot of people just look at these stories like Tiamat and Marduk or the Christ story and the Bible stories and say, “Well, that’s just … Those are nice stories, but I’m not going to take it seriously.” What’s the case you make, because I know actually—

PETERSON: Well, what are you going to take seriously, then? You’re going to take nothing seriously. Well, good luck with that, because serious things are coming your way. If you’re not prepared for them by an equal metaphysical seriousness, they will flatten you. You can be dismissive with regards to wisdom, but that doesn’t protect you from the coming catastrophe.

(This is not a persuasive argument.)

Anyway, long quotes and I have nothing to add. At some point certain things just aren't worth thinking about anymore.