A judge ruled Jordan Peterson's personality test "lacks a sufficient scientific basis"

>Dr. Peterson had never met the appellant, nor watched the confession and his opinion (at para. 45):
>>[D]id not explain how the significance of these results on the reliability of [the appellant’s] confession or how the other traits identified by the test scores interrelated or informed the interpretation of the results. There was no explanation as to the legitimacy of isolating one personality trait from the others in determining a person’s response to interrogation.

Jordan Peterson was called as a witness by the defense, so it was the defense attorney's job to ask him the right questions that yield testimony that assists their case. They don't just put witnesses up on the stand and let them ramble.

>massive leftist bias
Explain how the judge has leftist bias. The judge sentenced a faggot to 7 years for manslaughter.

Oh boy another character assassination thread!

>never met the witness

Because this is an expert witness you fuck

I wonder who is behind this thread

Enlighten us big brain nibba.

Okay, so you can't use the big five to determine if someone can be manipulated into manslaughter. But you can use it to determine a lot of other useful things. What am I missing here?

>believe a judge's opinion about psychology
Do you also get your stock market tips from your plumber?

Petersonfags BTFO

Attached: peterson.webm (854x480, 307K)

Peterson was a part of the UN, niggers. If you need any proof of a globalist trying to normalize the mass migration, you don't need to search much further.

Attached: 1462265380284-1.jpg (602x409, 100K)

It was unrelated to the case at hand, that's all the information you can gather from that post. OP's attempts to swerve your thoughts are shit. For example, mentioning the final sentence at the very end to make you feel like it was Peterson's fault.

I don't even give a shit to this personality test, it wouldn't help or be of use to me to know the percentage of my openness or shit like that. OP is still a faggot.

Attached: 1482077924592.png (957x621, 585K)

>The big five personality test

AHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Attached: 1482776202153.png (640x640, 569K)

I can take a whack. nice flag leaf.

the case is saying that the personality test cannot be used as evidence of the defendant's psychological state. that matter remains in the area of actual therapeutic psychiatry.

>The judge concluded that Dr. Peterson’s methodology about the appellant’s personality lacked a sufficient scientific basis and was unreliable. Dr. Peterson had never met the appellant, nor watched the confession and his opinion (at para. 45):

learn 2 read

Who's doing it? Leftists?

Old man Peterson touched my front bum

Attached: IMG_3389.jpg (357x500, 36K)

Yeah, but peterstein claimed that it can be used as evidence you fucking brainlet. That's the big reveal.

>defendant's psychological state
It clearly says "personality":

>Dr. Peterson’s methodology about the appellant’s personality

And Peterson's entire argument is that the defendant's personality made him susceptible to being manipulated, using his personality test as evidence.

Nice try brainlet.

It's another episode of "everyone who doesn't like Peterson is a leftist".

Surely you realize how retarded this is.

>l-leave my favorite internet DOCTOR alone!
>h-he's like a father to me

Attached: kek.jpg (248x189, 18K)

>peterstein claimed that it can be used as evidence
As in to make evident facts about his clients on social situations? Comparing that to the word "evidence" as used in a court-of-law is like comparing a day to day kiss to a ceremonious kiss made on the altar in a marriage.

Why am I, a fucking hue, teaching muricanlets about the English language and its application?

Attached: 1516565065531.png (1012x968, 22K)

>expecting science from le storytelling kike lover

The judge is simply wrong, but this is common in our legal system.

>In other words, Peterson's personality test, that he sells for $10 a pop to hundreds of thousands of people, has no scientific basis in reality

Ah, your post is a decent takedown of JP, but this inference goes several steps further than the evidence allows.

Specifically, at issue in the court was the viability of the personality test as a gauge for the possible invalidity of a police confession.

It does not follow from the fact a court ruled that such test lacked a sufficient scientific basis for that purpose to the conclusion that JP's test has, in general, no scientific validity whatsoever.

Indeed, your use of the court's conclusion to draw that strained inference is as much of a stretch as JP using his personality test to draw an inference about the defendant's "susceptibility to being manipulated."

A Canadian judge? Lol

Ah judges. They are shit. Especially here. Oh how they groaned when our parliament had to pass mandatory sentences for certain offenses because our judges preferred to let people walk free even if found guilty.

>7 posts

>The judge concluded that Dr. Peterson’s methodology about the appellant’s personality lacked a sufficient scientific basis and was unreliable.
I don't know what faggot ass point you're trying to make, but that's what the judge had to say.

>judge is wrong, but daddy "depends on what you mean by truth" peterson is always right
kill yourself cultist

I think the problem lies in the complexity of the human psyche and the difficulty of finding objective criteria to measure against.

>Implying Peterson created the "Big 5"
What a stupid motherfucker

bretty good edit, bucko.

Attached: 1497013803537.jpg (1000x1563, 251K)

And as everyone knows, science is not science unless it is validated by a member of the judiciary

BASED CANADIAN JUDGE AMIRITE

It wasn't a murder it was a rightful honour killing of an HIV ridden faggot.

Well duh. The guy is a fucking idiot without anything useful to say.

>Peterson claimed that his personality test proved that the confession the defendant gave was invalid
This is a retarded defense, also the faggot who gave the other dude AIDS deserved to be murdered. I wonder if it had it's penalty reduced in Leafland like it did in Commiefornia.

>Specifically, at issue in the court was the viability of the personality test as a gauge for the possible invalidity of a police confession.
The judge specifically stated that:

> Dr. Peterson’s methodology about the appellant’s personality lacked a sufficient scientific basis and was unreliable.

This is in direct reference to the scientific validity of the personality test itself ("methodology"), specifically in its ability to measure personality.

Nice try.

You yourself said that
>peterstein claimed that it can be used as evidence
You clearly stated that Peterson himself claimed it was valid evidence to be used, as you heavily implied, in a court of law.

You jumped the gun, I addressed that in my post. Now you're being such an immense dumbfuck that you made me explain your own post to YOU, then re-word my own post in a way that you can wrap your head around it.

This simple exchange between me and you, two unknown randoms in an anonymous board was enough to make your own retardation clear as crystal. That's a feat, I guess.

Attached: tw1.jpg (550x419, 32K)

Testimony is a form of evidence you fucking retard.

Attached: hurrr.png (800x729, 48K)

so let me get this straight: the judge's statement in no way implies that Peterson presented his test as evidence?

Here's his statement again:
>The judge concluded that Dr. Peterson’s methodology about the appellant’s personality lacked a sufficient scientific basis and was unreliable.

lacked a sufficient scientific basis and was unreliable =/= has no scientific basis in reality
Lie detectors work most of the time, so long as the person doesn't have either experience at tricking them, or has a form of anxiety disorder.
However, because of these two quirks, they lack sufficient scientific basis and are unreliable, therefore not suitable for evidence.

Turns out that the law has a higher requirement for evidence than the social sciences can offer. What a fucking shock. A fucking 0.8 is one of the strongest correlations you can expect in this discipline? Wow, I'm amazed that a judge is having no part of that.

I'll help you to write your argument. All you have to do is say how that fact circles back to what I said. Because the way your post is, I can just quote myself to address it.

Attached: 1516115365226.png (600x388, 86K)

>imediately implying that peterson's test has the maximum correlation from the judge's statement
found the daddy cultist

the funny part is that while we're arguing about his retarded test, we're not really arguing how peterson tried to defend an aids-ridden faggot who was on trial for manslaugher

why don't you define evidence for us?

Doesn't really surprise me.

Attached: 1488328283020.png (431x442, 190K)

To be accepted in court, tests like these need to be published, validated, and accepted by the scientific community. Peterson's test meets none of these criteria.

>As in to make evident facts about his clients on social situations? Comparing that to the word "evidence" as used in a court-of-law is like comparing a day to day kiss to a ceremonious kiss made on the altar in a marriage.
Peterson's expert testimony was presented by the defendant's legal counsel as evidence in court. Peterson presented the results of his personality test as evidence that the defendant's personality type was a factor in him allegedly giving a false confession.

The judge dismissed this evidence as having no scientific merit and as unreliable.

Why are hue's so fucking low IQ? Oh wait...

was it a Canadian court?

Attached: 1486816391937.png (844x1157, 58K)

That's why the attorneys are supposed to present evidence of the scientific validity of a test.

>To be accepted in court, tests like these need to be published, validated, and accepted by the scientific community. Peterson's test meets none of these criteria.
Finally, someone who gets it.

I'm still enjoying my clean apartment though

>Turns out Peterson was called as a professional witness in a court case in 2013 and tried to use his "Big Five" personality test as evidence that the defendant wasn't guilty of manslaughter

Attached: download.jpg (300x168, 6K)

This actually confirms to me that Peterson is an idiot. Not because Big5 trait personality research is wrong, but because he was willing to get involved in a court case and try to apply the (valid and predictive) science where it didn't belong.

Yes I actually read the archive. He never should have gone in expecting to get someone off based on a personality TENDENCY.

Attached: 1271441813230.jpg (270x270, 30K)

Peterson's testimony was that his personality test pointed to the defendant being "susceptible to being manipulated". I think you're assuming Peterson jumped into the case and delivered what he thought to be a conclusive evidence towards the defendant's "innocence", but that's just you painting on a canvas. It's far more possible that he was simply asked for an opinion, or maybe was asked to participate in the trial, possibly paid by the defendant's lawyer or as some kind of favor to do something for his sake.

This story has no weight to whether Peterson believes his personality test would hold as tight evidence in a court because there is no way to draw conclusions from it. If he DOES believe it should be in court, then he's a fucking retard, yes.

who the fuck cares about his personality test

just watch his biblical lectures, make some personal deductions, and move on ffs

Yes, but the Unfakeable Five-Factor test isn't that old. There are well-established ways to assess personality. Peterson's test isn't one of them.

>The judge dismissed this evidence as having no scientific merit and as unreliable.

Why is a judge's opinion more authoritative than mine?

I can't disagree with what you said which is why I don't understand how you think that goes against what I've said?

So you mean that personality tests don't count as evidence in court?

How is the rest of STEM faring at tackling behavioral issues?

>I don't understand how you think that goes against what I've said?
Peterson would not have presented his personality test results as evidence if he personally thought it was not valid as evidence.

>Why is a judge's opinion more authoritative than mine?
Why is an airline pilot allowed to fly the plane and you're not?

This, essentially.
Although he maybe shouldn’t have been so eager to give expert testimony, in my opinion, this ruling hardly invalidates the man’s work.

I think you misunderstand the legal system and role of evidence, as well as that of expert witnesses.

I would independently note that confessions are heavily relied upon in North American systems, and are also nowhere near as reliable as we pretend they are. Stating that a person is susceptible to manipulation and that a confession may have been coerced isn’t invalid in and of itself, but it is clear that the defense here was kind of scattered in their approach. There would need to be at least a showing that in this instance the police tactics preyed upon that susceptibility somehow. But I don’t know all the details of Canadian laws and police procedures.

>maybe
>possibly
So you have absolutely nothing. Again, define evidence.

From the court document by the way:
>The judge’s voir dire ruling restricted Dr. Peterson’s proposed evidence significantly and prevented Dr. Moore from testifying at all.

Peterson proposed evidence. PROPOSED.

He has switched his argument from trying to claim that the personality test was not evidence, to now saying that Peterson never implied his test can be used as evidence in court.

It's just pilpul nonsense.

>Why is an airline pilot allowed to fly the plane and you're not?
Actually, I am allowed to do that. Now, answer the question.

>implying that peterson's test has the maximum correlation from the judge's statement
I didn't say that tho. I said nothing to that effect. I said that correlation within the social "sciences" aren't worth jack shit as far as the law is concerned. It has no relation to if the findings of that test were high or not.

>peterson tried to defend an aids-ridden faggot who was on trial for manslaugher
He was called as an expert witness. He was an expert. Either side can call expert witnesses, to testify for them.

Have you never encountered the legal system at all before?

He was called to give evidence to support the defenses claim that it would have been possible to feed someone evidence so as to lead the witness. Peterson not having personal contact with the defendant was not able to do this on the grounds of psychological theory being unreliable.
Again, a polygraph test was used by the police, however it's inadmissible as evidence on the same grounds.

>>l-leave my favorite internet DOCTOR alone!
>>h-he's like a father to me
A judge isn't in a position to attack the credibility of a Harvard prof. It's like a child doesn't hurt an adult when he attacks him. It's a stupid point.

Because the judge determines whether the evidence meets legal standards for admissibility. Those standards are relatively easy to assess even for a non-expert, because they include things like the reliability of the test, whether it was published, generally accepted by the field, etc. It's an attorney's job to present that evidence.

>Actually, I am allowed to do that.
You're allowed to fly 747s?

>Now, answer the question.
I did, but I guess you need hand holding:

Judges are selected for their job based on their past training and experience.

Not saying that corruption doesn't exist, but that can be said for airline pilots too.

Whether it meets the standard of the court (the judge's expertise) is unrelated to whether it has scientific merit (the opinion claimed, and an area of expertise totally foreign to the judge).

Nice pilpul faggot.

>He was called to give evidence to support the defenses claim that it would have been possible to feed someone evidence so as to lead the witness.
So he has no right to refuse?

>Peterson not having personal contact with the defendant was not able to do this on the grounds of psychological theory being unreliable.
That has nothing to do with anything. He personally PROPOSED that his retarded test can be used to PROVE that the faggot's testimony is unreliable.

What if the judge went to Harvard?

He's selected to be a legal judge, not to be a judge on what has scientific merit. That's for a scientist to decide.

>A judge isn't in a position to attack the credibility of a Harvard prof. It's like a child doesn't hurt an adult when he attacks him. It's a stupid point.
The judge did not attack Peterson's credibility, the judge simply observed that Peterson's personality test has no scientific research backing it up as a reliable measure of personality.

And scientists have decided that the test has no legal basis, which is why it was inadmissible in court.

Not if he was contracted by the defendant's attorney or directly asked to submit an opinion by the court. Rembember, being a clinical psychologist is a job.

What scientists?

>no legal basis
no scientific merit*

>He's selected to be a legal judge, not to be a judge on what has scientific merit. That's for a scientist to decide.
Then the defense should have presented evidence that Peterson's test has scientific merit. Since Peterson's test has not been studied and the results published in peer reviewed scientific journals, this is not something that could have been done.

I can't speak to their general admissibility, but one problem is that they predict tendencies and can't be used to assess the reliability of a single answer at a single time.

Also, while the Big Five are accepted and validated, *Peterson's test* isn't, as far as I know.

>What scientists?
Yes, exactly. The test has not been established to have scientific merit because no scientists have evaluated it.

Not a leaf lawfag but in murica you couldn't just bring in some random scientific test, if it was not previously established judges will shy away from permitting its admission. Sure, some novel tests pass muster under the federal rules or whatever state, but if its something new the odds look worse.

>Then the defense should have presented evidence that Peterson's test has scientific merit.

So basically the judge's opinion on the matter is just an argument from ignorance and totally worthless.

Great. That's activating my almonds now.

Jordan peterson fans puckering their assholes , pic somewhat related

Attached: image.jpg (821x869, 91K)

>Not if he was contracted by the defendant's attorney
This is what happened, and Peterson did not simply get a letter requesting his personality test be administered, Peterson gave a testimony in court that included the personality test as evidence, trying to make an argument about the defendant being coerced into a confession.

It's obvious you didn't read the the court document.

I haven't changed my starting opinion by a milimiter, I can assure you that. Take a look at my first post , then remember the phrase you quoted earlier about me defining evidence (which that user is asking me to do again for some reason) "As in to make evident facts about his clients on social situations? Comparing that to the word "evidence" as used in a court-of-law is like comparing a day to day kiss to a ceremonious kiss made on the altar in a marriage.
" and note how it was written in opposition that "Peterson claimed that it can be used as evidence". Submitting professional testimony doesn't imply that. At all.

You're both making me run in circles doing chores such as gathering my own posts and re-specifying what they were directed at all because you didn't bother to paint a better picture of the words used and what they're addressing.

>So he has no right to refuse?
He is meant to make up his mind when he knows nothing of the case, before getting involved? Fuck off. That is not the spirit of how any of any legal system works.

>He personally PROPOSED that his retarded test can be used to PROVE that the faggot's testimony is unreliable.

He was subjected to Polygraph test's, which have a 95~ accuracy rate are not considered to have merit enough.

Why the hell would a weak science, with correlations of 0.8, being good, be worth a damn in court? That says everything about Psychology, and nothing about Peterson.

If the defense called on Peterson knowing that this is what he would propose, then the defense are fools for imagining a judge would accept it. Again, not a stain on Peterson, within the field of psychology.

It depends on what you mean by "scientific merit." Certainly a test can have scientific merit but not be accepted as evidence, either in a specific scenario or at all.

But the evidentiary standard INVOLVES some demonstration of scientific merit, as it does for fingerprints, DNA, etc.

>"Peterson claimed that it can be used as evidence". Submitting professional testimony doesn't imply that. At all.
Why the fuck would Peterson submit it as evidence in court, as part of his testimony, if he doesn't think the test can be used as evidence of personality traits in court?

What kind of autism is this?

>You're both making me run in circles doing chores such as gathering my own posts and re-specifying what they were directed at all because you didn't bother to paint a better picture of the words used and what they're addressing.
You got BTFO.

No, that's completely false. It is, by default, excluded unless you can demonstrate that it IS valid. That didn't happen. If the standard weren't set up that way, then any kind of evidence could be deemed scientific, including facilitated communication and women's intuition.

Damn, a good post. I was gonna say the same thing basically but now I don't have to.

>It is, by default, excluded unless you can demonstrate that it IS valid.

I.e. an argument from ignorance.
"I don't know that it is evidence, therefore it isn't"

Polygraph tests certainly do not have an accuracy rate of 95%. Not even close. Go look up the National Academy of Science's report.

Why didn't Peterson or the defense put forward evidence for the scientific merit of the personality test?