15 Replies to “Where Would We Be Without Peer Review?”

  1. This interview brings up another factor that I never much considered. Most of these papers written on a collegiate level are done so with grants acquired through the university. The implication is that the monies are pooled then doled out to various writing efforts. One of the major reasons this mathematician decided to expose the corruption within peer review process was because that these radical feminists were getting a portion of the pot (grant money) to write their nonsense….which would, in turn, take away from the grant monies available to other more valid interests.

    So, not only does the radical feminist movement deluge society with nonsense. They do so at the expense of other more legitimate disciplines having to do with less.

    The other thing that stuck out to me in this interview was Peterson’s sport coat. Lobsters? Knowing him, it’s probably some strange psychological experiment.

    1. It’s a reference to the first chapter of his 12 Rules book. Either that or he’s been taking fashion advice from Don Cherry.

      2. He had a suit made for each chapter; he talked about it on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

  2. Peterson is a national treasure – love him. Period. A tiny quibble:

    He’s not the world’s greatest interviewer. His fertile mind constantly charges off in different (and usually interesting) directions. This takes the interviewee off topic and Peterson talks too much. Still very much worth while!

  3. RACISM and MISOGYNY in ELECTION DENIAL

    ABSTRACT

    The authors totally ignore the fact that election fraud is real and has nothing to do with racism or misogyny. That would earn us zero dollars in grant money. So we put together these obviously false premises to claim that in fact there is such a thing as election denial, and that it is based on racism and misogyny. And trans-phobia. And climate change denial. We’re on a roll !!!

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation