You guys, holy hell, just let him have his opinion. Not every discussion has to be about who's right or wrong.
When someone posts there opinions on a public forum, they better be ready to defend their perspective. And the discussion was never about who's right or wrong. He made completely unsubstantiated claims, and I called him out. He failed to defend his perspective with any non-anecdotal evidence or fallacies. That's that.
i expect no less from the great deflector fortuantely, ForgeHub doesn't ban you for having a different opinion, unlike NeoGAF where disagreeing with the narrative - even after posting a million studies and facts - makes you a racist, homophobe, transphobe, bigot, sexist, misogynist, list continues with other -isms
I'm way too lazy to go grab a bunch of statistics for you bb. Do you really want to have stats every time someone posts their opinion?
Sure! Yes, effectively, for the sake of simplicity, they are the same thing in conventional parlance. But having trait openness with regards to one aspect of your life vs many aspects is where the line gets drawn, and where you see the divide between a 'creative' lawyer and a 'creative' artist or sculptor. Not to mention how important those various aspects of the life are to the life as a whole. Again: a creative lawyer might be a 5/10 in trait openness, and a corresponding 5/10 in those endeavors where he decides to be creative, but in those endeavors where he has to be rigid, and has no time for the 'openness', he will not be creative - on the whole, lawyers spend a lot of time reading boring, coded, thick documents, where there is little room or time to be creative at their max capacity. An artist might be an 8/10, and will be spending much more time on the creative things (because unlike the lawyer, that's what his profession requires), and so his trait openness will be more important, and factor much more into the line of work he's chosen for himself. And for the record, a 5/10 is not 'high' in trait openness, it is middling, and I/m being generous for the sake of argument. Maybe a contractor or an automotive technician who spends 14 hour days on just tightening bolts, eating, and going to sleep will have a 2/10. At no point does he say lawyers are LOW - they merely tend not to be HIGH in trait openness, and therefore not high in generally observable or applicable creativity.
And if you think a 5/10 is high, which seems to be the point you're defending, then buddy I've got some bad news for you...
We literally just got finished arguing for like 3 pages. Were you not trying to make an argument for your perspective? Of course you were. Spoiler hint: you failed
I think test scores are independent of how people actually behave IRL. Think about how all the exams you've taken really reflect who you are. I know, I know--anecdotal evidence. Maybe the stats are consistent, but I believe that, in a plain english context, lawyers are creative people, regardless of what test scores they get, or the language that Peterson uses to describe them. Maybe we mean the same thing, just using different words. But if someone told me "lawyers are not creative," as Peterson seems to, I would disagree.
I'l make octagon with a gravity lift in mid just below a floating sniper. the sniper is in a hard kill boundary
That is a denial of evidence outright. Their 'test results' are direct indicators of how they behave IRL because they are based on how they act IRL. I don't care if you happen to have a yellow tomato in your garden, most tomatoes are ****ing red, and if you can't wrap your dense skull around something that simple then I am wasting my time. Most exams I've taken do reflect who I am, unless they were badly administered - and they are representative of my behavior in regards the various subjects they focus on. Are you now going to claim that the tests Peterson is referencing, and conducted himself are all badly designed? If so, prove it, and/or design a better one. *edit* since you've added on: Yes! You're arguing from the specific to the general, along the exact lines that I've described in all my posts, that perhaps a 'creative' person that you know who is a lawyer is creative outside of their office time, in proportional capacity to their 'trait openness'. You're just being dense from what I can tell.
I cannot believe this if they say that lawyers are not creative. Maybe I don't know enough about lawyers, but I think they are creative, in a plain english sense. If you wanted to say that they are not creative, based on test results, I would say that the test results do not accurately reflect the person. Surely a creative person ought to score highly on a creativity exam.
right you are claiming then that the tests and experiments/observations were badly designed explain why