In for it!
Try some of his personality theory lectures?
I've had to stop listening to him. He makes some good points and argumentds but is too certain in his own conclusions, even (and sometimes especially) too adamant in his own doubt. There's a few times he's stated something as fact something that's not, which I find unforgivable in someone of his position. David Attenborough wouldn't do it!!!!!!!!
I think he's too used to being listened to, too used to having what he says either respected or needed to be defended or justified, too used to his own status as a lecturer.
As I used ImageArt's phone for a few weeks, I'd deleted him off my feed on that phone. Now I'm back on my own, he's still on my download list so I've listened to a few more. I've evolved a better, more considered response to what I find problematic in his work to my previous one because of it.I haven’t gotten to that yet - though I must admit I’m selective. I’m entranced by the lectures on personality theory, Jung, archetypes, Solzhenitsyn.... his absolute across-ness of psychological/empirical research. And his (to me clearly) genuine desire to see the world engaged in civil intelligent conversation. And so far I’ve been impressed by his willingness to re-think something raised in a debate (Sam Harris) and to apologise (to Milo wossisname) for ‘not defending him as well as he should/could have’ in the heat of some rapid fire to & fro.
If there are specific lectures you can point me to, do pm me — break it to me gently, but I’ll encounter his feet of clay at some point so now’s as good a time as any
He often takes a reductionist stance on things. There's nothing wrong with that, reduction is a form of abstraction and, as discussed elsewhere, that can be quite a powerful tool in your box. But Jordan B. makes the classic mistake of misidentifying his reductionist models as reality. His stuff is peppered with self fulfilling conversational justifications such as "This stuff is real!" and "It does, it really does!" and "That's just how you are, there's nothing you can do about it!", which he offers up as evidence or established argument. It really is a rookie mistake and as he identifies as coming from a scientific background, it's inexcusable in my (not so humble) opinion.
He also uses disengenous rhetorical devices to get his points across.
He often distances or abstracts himself out of his arguments and that has the effect of depersonalizing his points and generalising them out onto the external world. A common example of this is when he's talking through the thought processes he's gone through to arrive at a conclusion. He'll often use the phrase something to the effect of: "And then you think...." or "And then the conclusion you make...".
He couches these moments in the present tense as if they are always, already happening at that time and every time, which allows him to skip his argument onto the next point quickly, deflecting the listener from observation and critical thought as he runs ahead to get to his conclusion.
As I said before. Attenborough wouldn't do it!