Jordan Peterson's Advice for practicing and developing better critical-thinking habits
Talk Pro and Con
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1proximity1
Jordan Peterson, clinical psychiatrist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto has a four-minute video: "The Best Way To Learn Critical Thinking " (SRESMO*)
His approach? Learn to write expository essays and practice that regularly. Dr. Peterson has taken the trouble to set out how and why he regards the practice of writing regularly as one of the most effective ways to develop and exercise better critical-thinking habits.
He begins by saying, "The best way to teach people critical-thinking is to teach them to write."
(This four-minute talk does not cover the details of the keys to good expository-writing habits. It's too brief for that. Think of it as a promotional announcement for why he wrote about how his view that learning to write well is also an exercise in critical-thinking and why his listeners should follow and adopt his advice. But, to get that advice, see the link to the 25-page document, below.)
That is, in the process, one practices and learns both good writing habits and good critical-thinking habits and one develops and improves them if he practices essay-writing regularly.
I agree that it is and so I'm placing a link here to his guidelines and highlighting some of them.
But in addition to writing regularly, I think that it's also very useful for one to look for and select a matter of controversy which interests one and engage with it: read the arguments, "pro" and "con", try and discover the strengths and the weaknesses on each (or all) sides of the controversy. What the details are about is less important than that one finds them interesting and that there is a real as opposed to simply a trivial controversy going on--the disagreements concern facts and judgments and are not simply based on superficial semantics or a misunderstanding of the issues.
The following link (found at Dr. Peterson's Psychology 434 course web-page ) opens a prompt to open or save document file containing the text of the guidelines. (Web pages for both courses, Psychology 430 & 434, have the link to his article on narrative or essay writing. The file size is approx. 39Kb. in a 25-page Word (TM.) format document. It starts with very elementary things--"what is an essay?", so people who don't need these parts can skip them--but they ought to read "What is an essay?" unless they're quite sure they already know this. ;^)
Much of the advice is very similar to the best writing advice found published in books on the craft of writing as part of the reasoning proecsses.
I particularly liked this and have found numerous occasions on which I've tried to make this point so I offer it here as an example:
and this:
I am, of course, not necessarily at all a fine and consistent model practitioner of all of Peterson's insights and recommendations. But that doesn't prevent me from recognizing their value.
_________________________________________
SRESMO* : "Some rather exaggerated statements may occur"
His approach? Learn to write expository essays and practice that regularly. Dr. Peterson has taken the trouble to set out how and why he regards the practice of writing regularly as one of the most effective ways to develop and exercise better critical-thinking habits.
He begins by saying, "The best way to teach people critical-thinking is to teach them to write."
(This four-minute talk does not cover the details of the keys to good expository-writing habits. It's too brief for that. Think of it as a promotional announcement for why he wrote about how his view that learning to write well is also an exercise in critical-thinking and why his listeners should follow and adopt his advice. But, to get that advice, see the link to the 25-page document, below.)
That is, in the process, one practices and learns both good writing habits and good critical-thinking habits and one develops and improves them if he practices essay-writing regularly.
I agree that it is and so I'm placing a link here to his guidelines and highlighting some of them.
But in addition to writing regularly, I think that it's also very useful for one to look for and select a matter of controversy which interests one and engage with it: read the arguments, "pro" and "con", try and discover the strengths and the weaknesses on each (or all) sides of the controversy. What the details are about is less important than that one finds them interesting and that there is a real as opposed to simply a trivial controversy going on--the disagreements concern facts and judgments and are not simply based on superficial semantics or a misunderstanding of the issues.
The following link (found at Dr. Peterson's Psychology 434 course web-page ) opens a prompt to open or save document file containing the text of the guidelines. (Web pages for both courses, Psychology 430 & 434, have the link to his article on narrative or essay writing. The file size is approx. 39Kb. in a 25-page Word (TM.) format document. It starts with very elementary things--"what is an essay?", so people who don't need these parts can skip them--but they ought to read "What is an essay?" unless they're quite sure they already know this. ;^)
Much of the advice is very similar to the best writing advice found published in books on the craft of writing as part of the reasoning proecsses.
I particularly liked this and have found numerous occasions on which I've tried to make this point so I offer it here as an example:
"Rules are there for a reason. You are only allowed to break them if you are a master. If you’re not a master, don’t confuse your ignorance with creativity or style. Writing that follows the rules is easier for readers, because they know roughly what to expect. So rules are conventions. Like all conventions, they are sometimes sub-optimal. But not very often. So, to begin with, use the conventions. For example, aim to make your paragraphs about 10 sentences or 100 words long."
and this:
"The fifth level of resolution is the essay, as a whole. Every element of an essay can be correct, each word, sentence, and paragraph – even the paragraph order – and the essay can still fail, because it is just not interesting or important. It is very hard for competent but uninspired writers to understand this kind of failure, because a critic cannot merely point it out. There is no answer to their question, “exactly where did I make a mistake?” Such an essay is just not good. An essay without originality or creativity might fall into this category. Sometimes a creative person, who is not technically proficient as a writer, can make the opposite mistake: their word choice is poor, their sentences badly constructed and poorly organized within their paragraphs, their paragraphs in no intelligible relationship to one another – and yet the essay as a whole can succeed, because there are valuable thoughts trapped within it, wishing desperately to find expression."
I am, of course, not necessarily at all a fine and consistent model practitioner of all of Peterson's insights and recommendations. But that doesn't prevent me from recognizing their value.
_________________________________________
SRESMO* : "Some rather exaggerated statements may occur"
2JGL53
Jordan Peterson doesn't seem that smart to me, though he sure does talk pretty. Here's a video of a discussion/debate with some guy who points out how full of shit Mr. Peterson actually is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8
The above video is rather long so then maybe this eight minute video is enough to get the point across - that Jordan Peterson is a highly successful scam artist and/or is full of shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn2tNXIvXtg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8
The above video is rather long so then maybe this eight minute video is enough to get the point across - that Jordan Peterson is a highly successful scam artist and/or is full of shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn2tNXIvXtg
3proximity1
>2 JGL53:
I wonder what the fuck your comment has to do with the point of this thread--which is the close relationship between good critical-thinking habits and good (clear, effective) expository-writing habits and how the regular practice of the latter helps develop and improve the former.
You might agree with that or you might not; we don't know because you've ignored this in favor of asserting that Jordan Peterson is "full of shit" --for which argument you refer us to your preferred champion in this contest, Matt Dillahunty, 'star' atheist. I, too, classify myself as a non-believer when it comes to gods, God, etc. I don't worship one. But that doesn't have anything to do with writing and critical-thinking--in neither of which you show much impressive talent.
If people want to consider the differences in views between Matt Dillahunty an Jordan Peterson, they can do that by listening to them debate. Your referring us to the brief video by David Pakman and his "The David Pakman Show" is very amusing--as in laughable junk. Now I know I never need to waste time clicking on a link to "The David Pakman Show."
There's a lot on which I'm sure that I'd agree in the opinions of Matt Dillahunty. But none of those undercut some quite important and valid points which Jordan Peterson makes about aspects of our lives which, for lack of better terms, we describe as "spiritual"--these are mental phenomena but no less real for that.
I also agree with Dillahunty's basic dichotomy between the natural and the super-natural and his rejection of the super-natural.
But enough about all that. This is a thread about writing and critical thinking. And I'm ignoring any further off-topic comments from you in it.
I wonder what the fuck your comment has to do with the point of this thread--which is the close relationship between good critical-thinking habits and good (clear, effective) expository-writing habits and how the regular practice of the latter helps develop and improve the former.
You might agree with that or you might not; we don't know because you've ignored this in favor of asserting that Jordan Peterson is "full of shit" --for which argument you refer us to your preferred champion in this contest, Matt Dillahunty, 'star' atheist. I, too, classify myself as a non-believer when it comes to gods, God, etc. I don't worship one. But that doesn't have anything to do with writing and critical-thinking--in neither of which you show much impressive talent.
If people want to consider the differences in views between Matt Dillahunty an Jordan Peterson, they can do that by listening to them debate. Your referring us to the brief video by David Pakman and his "The David Pakman Show" is very amusing--as in laughable junk. Now I know I never need to waste time clicking on a link to "The David Pakman Show."
There's a lot on which I'm sure that I'd agree in the opinions of Matt Dillahunty. But none of those undercut some quite important and valid points which Jordan Peterson makes about aspects of our lives which, for lack of better terms, we describe as "spiritual"--these are mental phenomena but no less real for that.
I also agree with Dillahunty's basic dichotomy between the natural and the super-natural and his rejection of the super-natural.
But enough about all that. This is a thread about writing and critical thinking. And I'm ignoring any further off-topic comments from you in it.
4JGL53
I only posted on this thread to give others a heads-up that your hero is a scam artist at best and a nutjob at worse.
I doubt in the first place anyone else is interested in "critical thinking" as defined by you or your fellow genius hero, i.e., I suspect this will be the last post on this thread - unless you post something else.
I am bored now. Thanks.
I doubt in the first place anyone else is interested in "critical thinking" as defined by you or your fellow genius hero, i.e., I suspect this will be the last post on this thread - unless you post something else.
I am bored now. Thanks.
