Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
I think a comparison to intolerant religious thinking is more appropriate. The Nazis are too extreme. There was little well-meaning about them, and many on the woke side are well-meaning,.
It's probably not the case that Nazi supporters considered themselves to be ill-meaning at the time.
wrote on 25 Aug 2023, 17:43 last edited by Renauda@Horace said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
I think a comparison to intolerant religious thinking is more appropriate. The Nazis are too extreme. There was little well-meaning about them, and many on the woke side are well-meaning,.
It's probably not the case that Nazi supporters considered themselves to be ill-meaning at the time.
As did English Puritans believe they were doing God’s work in their day.
I think Phibe’s juxtaposition of the modern day Jacobinism, presently called wokism, with the religious intolerance of earlier times is quite appropriate. One of the tangible consequences of both is the emergence of a populist led cancel culture in society.
-
wrote on 25 Aug 2023, 17:57 last edited by Doctor Phibes
A number of my ancestors were Methodists, so we didn't hate anybody, but a number of my older relatives did have a rather disapproving attitude to the consumption of alcoholic beverages, which I have endeavoured to redress.
-
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 03:20 last edited by
Peterson loses appeal in free speech battle
Dr. Jordan Peterson has lost his free speech court battle against the College of Psychologists of Ontario (again).
An Ontario court dismissed his appeal as first reported by the National Post.
No statement from the court was provided.
In August, the Ontario Divisional Court sided against Peterson after deliberating over his right to free speech versus the right of the Ontario College of Psychologists to regulate what licensed psychologists can say in public.
Initially, the College requested Peterson’s voluntary participation to receive social media training in response to public complaints about his online conduct. Peterson declined.
The College subsequently ordered Peterson to undergo the training, and mandated that he finance it.
Peterson took the issue to court, arguing that his Charter right to freedom of expression had been violated.
There are no further opportunities for Dr. Peterson to appeal the decision, making it final.
He will either be forced to undergo whatever social media training is required by the College, or he can refuse and risk having his clinical psychologist license stripped.
Peterson has previously said he will record whatever training he receives.
“I’ll comply with their regulations, but I’m not going to do it in secret… And the reason I’m not going to do it in secret is because I don’t believe I’ve done anything wrong,” he said in August 2023.
-
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 03:51 last edited by Renauda
A bit more to it than what that “report” states:
Peterson’s comments did not run afoul of any Canadian laws.
Rather, they were found to have contravened specific rules that exist for psychologists, a regulated profession.
“When individuals join a regulated profession, they do not lose their Charter right to freedom of expression,” says the ruling by the Ontario Divisional Court from August. “At the same time, however, they take on obligations and must abide by the rules of their regulatory body that may limit their freedom of expression.”
Essentially the courts do not want to get involved in disputes between licensed professions and their regulatory colleges.
-
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 11:27 last edited by
[Cynic hat on]
Presumably he makes a lot more money from his non-psychological stuff than he does from his old job, so this is going to be a good opportunity for yet more publicity. -
[Cynic hat on]
Presumably he makes a lot more money from his non-psychological stuff than he does from his old job, so this is going to be a good opportunity for yet more publicity.wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 12:04 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
[Cynic hat on]
Presumably he makes a lot more money from his non-psychological stuff than he does from his old job, so this is going to be a good opportunity for yet more publicity.I was wondering about that. He probably does pretty well with his podcasts, TED-like talks, etc.
I wonder how much time he spends actually treating patients (one-on-one) and teaching.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
[Cynic hat on]
Presumably he makes a lot more money from his non-psychological stuff than he does from his old job, so this is going to be a good opportunity for yet more publicity.I was wondering about that. He probably does pretty well with his podcasts, TED-like talks, etc.
I wonder how much time he spends actually treating patients (one-on-one) and teaching.
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 12:32 last edited by@George-K said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
[Cynic hat on]
Presumably he makes a lot more money from his non-psychological stuff than he does from his old job, so this is going to be a good opportunity for yet more publicity.I was wondering about that. He probably does pretty well with his podcasts, TED-like talks, etc.
I wonder how much time he spends actually treating patients (one-on-one) and teaching.
I kind of liked his common-sense stuff a few years back. Now he seems to just opine on everything - social issues, politics, religion, dating, drinking, the list is endless. I'm half expecting him to start reviewing saxophone mouthpieces (something I waste far too much time watching)
-
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 12:48 last edited by
His approach to common sense was fun. However, that seems to have broadened to the same place that his haberdasher has. I mean, if you want to be taken seriously, don't dress like a clown.
-
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 13:55 last edited by
I think the constant attacks from the left have driven him into this much more across the board conservative political position, he is where they have pushed him to be.
I would like to see him go to the reeducation clinics and film them. Challenge them when necessary and appropriate.
The Brad
-
I think the constant attacks from the left have driven him into this much more across the board conservative political position, he is where they have pushed him to be.
I would like to see him go to the reeducation clinics and film them. Challenge them when necessary and appropriate.
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 14:01 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
I think the constant attacks from the left have driven him into this much more across the board conservative political position, he is where they have pushed him to be.
I would like to see him go to the reeducation clinics and film them. Challenge them when necessary and appropriate.
Absolutely. The video may do an epic amount of good.
-
I think the constant attacks from the left have driven him into this much more across the board conservative political position, he is where they have pushed him to be.
I would like to see him go to the reeducation clinics and film them. Challenge them when necessary and appropriate.
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 14:02 last edited by@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
Essentially the courts do not want to get involved in disputes between licensed professions and their regulatory colleges.
Interesting take. Probably accurate too.
@LuFins-Dad said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
I would like to see him go to the reeducation clinics and film them
He claims he will be recording the proceedings.
-
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 14:22 last edited by
He doesn’t practice anymore, this is just about the principle. I am sure anybody can relate to the frustration of being held accountable by nameless faceless people who do not explain themselves and who have no obligation to do so. Reminds me of an HOA.
-
He doesn’t practice anymore, this is just about the principle. I am sure anybody can relate to the frustration of being held accountable by nameless faceless people who do not explain themselves and who have no obligation to do so. Reminds me of an HOA.
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 14:26 last edited by@Horace said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
I am sure anybody can relate to the frustration of being held accountable by nameless faceless people who do not explain themselves and who have no obligation to do so.
I happen to work in that area, and find your comments deeply offensive.
-
He doesn’t practice anymore, this is just about the principle. I am sure anybody can relate to the frustration of being held accountable by nameless faceless people who do not explain themselves and who have no obligation to do so. Reminds me of an HOA.
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 15:15 last edited by RenaudaI am sure anybody can relate to the frustration of being held accountable by nameless faceless people who do not explain themselves and who have no obligation to do so.
That is how it is for regulated professions like psychologists, speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, physio-therapists, physicians and surgeons, engineers, architects, geologists, barristers and solicitors, accountants and pharmacists to name but a few. Generally it is understood and accepted and in the case of health care professionals appreciated when employers attempt to assign duties and responsibilities upon their membership that is outside of their scope of practice. The regulatory college intervenes on behalf of its membership. All provincial regulatory colleges have set codes of conduct which the members must agree to adhere in order to maintain to their license to practice within the jurisdiction of the College.
Dr. Peterson would not only know and understand this but would also accept it.
-
I am sure anybody can relate to the frustration of being held accountable by nameless faceless people who do not explain themselves and who have no obligation to do so.
That is how it is for regulated professions like psychologists, speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, physio-therapists, physicians and surgeons, engineers, architects, geologists, barristers and solicitors, accountants and pharmacists to name but a few. Generally it is understood and accepted and in the case of health care professionals appreciated when employers attempt to assign duties and responsibilities upon their membership that is outside of their scope of practice. The regulatory college intervenes on behalf of its membership. All provincial regulatory colleges have set codes of conduct which the members must agree to adhere in order to maintain to their license to practice within the jurisdiction of the College.
Dr. Peterson would not only know and understand this but would also accept it.
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 15:35 last edited by@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
I am sure anybody can relate to the frustration of being held accountable by nameless faceless people who do not explain themselves and who have no obligation to do so.
That is how it is for regulated professions like psychologists, speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, physio-therapists, physicians and surgeons, engineers, geologists, barristers and solicitors, accountants and pharmacists to name but a few. Generally it is understood and accepted and in the case of health care professionals appreciated when employers attempt to assign duties and responsibilities upon their membership that is outside of their scope of practice. The regulatory college intervenes on behalf of its membership. All provincial regulatory colleges have set codes of conduct which the members must agree to adhere in order to maintain to their license to practice within the jurisdiction of the College.
Dr. Peterson would not only know and understand this but would also accept it.
None of that is a justification for an opaque process in which the authorities do not explain themselves.
-
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 15:38 last edited by Doctor Phibes
I'm pretty sure my employer would object strongly if I posted all the stuff that JP does under my own name.
-
I'm pretty sure my employer would object strongly if I posted all the stuff that JP does under my own name.
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 15:41 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
I'm pretty sure my employer would object strongly if I posted all the stuff that JP does under my own name.
It's a licensing board, not an employer. It would be more appropriate to say they work for him. Again not unlike an HOA.
-
@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
I am sure anybody can relate to the frustration of being held accountable by nameless faceless people who do not explain themselves and who have no obligation to do so.
That is how it is for regulated professions like psychologists, speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, physio-therapists, physicians and surgeons, engineers, geologists, barristers and solicitors, accountants and pharmacists to name but a few. Generally it is understood and accepted and in the case of health care professionals appreciated when employers attempt to assign duties and responsibilities upon their membership that is outside of their scope of practice. The regulatory college intervenes on behalf of its membership. All provincial regulatory colleges have set codes of conduct which the members must agree to adhere in order to maintain to their license to practice within the jurisdiction of the College.
Dr. Peterson would not only know and understand this but would also accept it.
None of that is a justification for an opaque process in which the authorities do not explain themselves.
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 16:05 last edited byNone of that is a justification for an opaque process in which the authorities do not explain themselves..
Although I understand your position on the matter, the opaque process is justified through the respective provincial legislation that governs the mandate of each College. Dr. Peterson knows this and is free to petition his peers to introduce transparency to the process. The colleges are not run by provincial government appointees but by elected members of the profession by the membership at large. Likewise and as I stated already, Dr. Peterson would know this. Rather than crying to the law courts he should be petitioning the membership and seek election to his College’s BOD. If he has no support in such an endeavour then I would say it is not an issue that needs to be addressed.
-
None of that is a justification for an opaque process in which the authorities do not explain themselves..
Although I understand your position on the matter, the opaque process is justified through the respective provincial legislation that governs the mandate of each College. Dr. Peterson knows this and is free to petition his peers to introduce transparency to the process. The colleges are not run by provincial government appointees but by elected members of the profession by the membership at large. Likewise and as I stated already, Dr. Peterson would know this. Rather than crying to the law courts he should be petitioning the membership and seek election to his College’s BOD. If he has no support in such an endeavour then I would say it is not an issue that needs to be addressed.
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 16:29 last edited by@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
None of that is a justification for an opaque process in which the authorities do not explain themselves..
Although I understand your position on the matter, the opaque process is justified through the respective provincial legislation that governs the mandate of each College. Dr. Peterson knows this and is free to petition his peers to introduce transparency to the process. The colleges are not run by provincial government appointees but by elected members of the profession by the membership at large. Likewise and as I stated already, Dr. Peterson would know this. Rather than crying to the law courts he should be petitioning the membership and seek election to his College’s BOD. If he has no support in such an endeavour then I would say it is not an issue that needs to be addressed.
This could be used as a boilerplate defense of any institutionalized bureaucratic nonsense. Meanwhile, the nonsense itself might be interesting to investigate and discuss, to the extent there are details to investigate or discuss.
-
@Renauda said in Jordan Peterson to get “retrained?”:
None of that is a justification for an opaque process in which the authorities do not explain themselves..
Although I understand your position on the matter, the opaque process is justified through the respective provincial legislation that governs the mandate of each College. Dr. Peterson knows this and is free to petition his peers to introduce transparency to the process. The colleges are not run by provincial government appointees but by elected members of the profession by the membership at large. Likewise and as I stated already, Dr. Peterson would know this. Rather than crying to the law courts he should be petitioning the membership and seek election to his College’s BOD. If he has no support in such an endeavour then I would say it is not an issue that needs to be addressed.
This could be used as a boilerplate defense of any institutionalized bureaucratic nonsense. Meanwhile, the nonsense itself might be interesting to investigate and discuss, to the extent there are details to investigate or discuss.
wrote on 17 Jan 2024, 16:43 last edited by RenaudaThe practice of Psychological Counselling is a regulated heath care profession. For good reason too I should think.
It’s what it is; not what others like you and I on the outside might think it is or think it should be.
