Jordan Peterson

Your favorite books and links
jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 12858
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by jacob »

Alphaville wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:54 pm
i watched that and actually things got simpler post-college when they started delving into ethics and science fiction which could have been done at high school level
Did [things get simpler] though? Is it possible to have an opinion on the ethics (or SF for that matter) w/o bothering to understand the technical details first? I'm not sure this is just a rhetorical question.

Alphaville
Posts: 2012
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Jordan Petersonj

Post by Alphaville »

jacob wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:59 pm
Did [things get simpler] though? Is it possible to have an opinion on the ethics (or SF for that matter) w/o bothering to understand the technical details first? I'm not sure this is just a rhetorical question.
no, it really was to me different subject not a different level of the same subject.

the m9 protein complex or something- bla la bla (cant recall the name) was when i started to feel out of my depth. “oh i don’t know this”

but then it was like a coffee shop conversation or late night drinking session. went from technical to speculative.

btw it was funny that the little kid knew “azythromicin” and the girl knows p53 (?) mutation. clever kids.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 12858
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Jordan Petersonj

Post by jacob »

Alphaville wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:03 pm
no, it really was to me different subject not a different level of the same subject.
Because different levels are not just different in degree but in kind... or rather both differences in degree and in kind. Two dimensions interacting.

This is quite evident in the COVID2 thread, for example.

Alphaville
Posts: 2012
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Alphaville »

jacob wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:23 pm
Usually the rule of thumb is "never take fitness advice from a fat coach"---something about "eating their own cooking". I'm not entirely convinced that should be a hard rule. It depends. It should be possible to know (German wissen) the correct solution w/o being able to practice it.
true. i used to know of hard-partying psychiatrist who was very good at curing depression (maybe his pharmaceuticsl experiences gave him an edge).

but in psychology it’s not just a matter of knowledge but emotional involvement. transference, countertransference, all manner of pitfalls that can lead to serious breaches of ethics, iatrogenia, etc. see: licensing boards and malpractice lawsuits.

last, even if we agree that it doesn’t require perfection to try to help others, that’s precisely where jordan shoots himself in the foot- he says you should stick to “set your house in order first.” working in your own problems and not try to fix society. zizek actually takes him to ask on that very point.

what zizek doesn’t say (but i say) is that i think jordan has a lot of “issues” he’s projecting into the culture.

and sure, he helps so e kids, but what about the silent evidence? lives and relationships and situations his ideology has damaged or ruined?

therefore (i’ve wanted to say this all day but didn’t want to convey lynch mob energy):
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:10 am
Peterson going nuts from eating weird diet is more true and more funny.
he set his house in the wrong order! :lol:

(and seriously, don’t eat *just beef.* oppotunistic omnivores can’t swing that way.)

Crusader
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:16 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Crusader »

@Alphaville

Ah ok, I think I see where the problem is. I agree that sometimes you have to simplify stuff using analogies and metaphors etc. But, for that to work, you need to actually trust the person that is doing it for you. You are placing a bet with yourself that if you took the time the expert did, you would reach the same conclusion, so you are using the expert as a shortcut to save time. I don't fundamentally trust Zizek (or Peterson, for that matter), given some of the stuff they've said, which is not true for Sam Harris, for example, exactly because of these contradictions that you speak of. If they contradict themselves, then I have to constantly be on guard, and take everything they say with a grain of salt.

Alphaville
Posts: 2012
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Jordan Petersonj

Post by Alphaville »

jacob wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:18 pm
Because different levels are not just different in degree but in kind... or rather both differences in degree and in kind. Two dimensions interacting.

This is quite evident in the COVID2 thread, for example.
on further thought there were 2 subjects i identified: the technical and the ethical aspects. mid-experiment i i felt like it was going to be a technical talk but perhaps it was intended to be about the ethics all along.

i wanted to feel gradually lost in technical incomprehensibilities :lol:

Alphaville
Posts: 2012
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Alphaville »

Crusader wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:21 pm
@Alphaville

Ah ok, I think I see where the problem is. I agree that sometimes you have to simplify stuff using analogies and metaphors etc. But, for that to work, you need to actually trust the person that is doing it for you. You are placing a bet with yourself that if you took the time the expert did, you would reach the same conclusion, so you are using the expert as a shortcut to save time. I don't fundamentally trust Zizek (or Peterson, for that matter), given some of the stuff they've said, which is not true for Sam Harris, for example, exactly because of these contradictions that you speak of. If they contradict themselves, then I have to constantly be on guard, and take everything they say with a grain of salt.
i don’t know this sam harris but i’ll look him up, thanks.

and yes some things can be expressed in metaphor but also some things are more or less ineffable or just too abstruse to define (because words can lead to confusion), and in the effort to illuminate this one must use language to trigger a perception rather than “to explain.”

laughter is often a sign of a little epiphany, yes? (or a cosmic one too)

Crusader
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:16 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Crusader »

Alphaville wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:32 pm
i don’t know this sam harris but i’ll look him up, thanks.
No problem. I posted an interview he did with Peterson earlier in the thread:
https://samharris.org/speaking-of-truth ... -peterson/

And I feel I would have had the exact same (bad) conversation with Peterson if I had a chance to talk to him. Not that I agree with everything Sam says (not so sure with his stance on guns), but at least I know that we are using the same "language" to communicate, and in good faith.

And, for a critique of Zizek, I like this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCJey_y ... micSkeptic
(I also like this guy CosmicSkeptic in general)

Alphaville
Posts: 2012
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Alphaville »

Crusader wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:45 pm
No problem. I posted an interview he did with Peterson earlier in the thread:
https://samharris.org/speaking-of-truth ... -peterson/

And I feel I would have had the exact same (bad) conversation with Peterson if I had a chance to talk to him. Not that I agree with everything Sam says (not so sure with his stance on guns), but at least I know that we are using the same "language" to communicate, and in good faith.
oh yah i get what you mean now. different “language games” (that’s wittgenstein btw—another abstruse thinker—but you have the same advanced idea here—hence, not stupid)

indeed, peterson speaks in the language of old-timey psychology, clinical behavioral research, and bible bible bible bible bible :lol: (i also hear in his discourse echoes of other less flattering things that i need not repeat)

eta: i couldn’t finish that kid’s video, but fyi i’m not a “zizekian” or believer or follower of his or anything, and i don’t have to agree or disagree with all he says. i just find him more intelligent/interesting/funny/erudite than his usual opponents (including ofc the earnest kid in that video who tries to “interpret” him by line for me—i just wanted him to shut up and stop interrupting zizek so i could form my own opinion lol)

Crusader
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:16 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Crusader »

Fair enough! To each his own. 8-)

Alphaville
Posts: 2012
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Alphaville »

alright brother! i appreciate the good dialogue, let’s do this again soon.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6612
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I downloaded “Sex and the Failed Absolute”- Zizek and “The Four Fundamental Processes of Psycho-Analysis”-Lacan. Not the easiest going, but IMO not as difficult as, for instance, Hume, Zukofsky, or your average scientific journal.

Not to beat upon small drum endlessly, I would note once more for the record that Peterson recommends disciplining very small children until they submit to exhibiting passive adult-like behavior in venues such as restaurants. He gives no voice to research that suggests that being disciplined by large other into such a submissive posture at very young age does not lend itself to internalization of self-discipline, but rather lends itself to development of sexually submissive personae in contrast to dominant social behavior.

Any assistant preschool teacher with 2 years of community college, a modicum of empathy, and a bit of observant experience would label him a quack if she knew what he was about.

Penelope Leach, a great 20th century writer on the topic of early childhood development, and a fairly tough cookie herself, at the beginning of her classic on babies, calls out all the earlier male so-called experts on early development who wrote in offices where somebody brought them tea and they shuffled through their young patients 15 minutes at a time. What could they know about infant development compared to the females who were actually engaged with their own children or charges for hour upon hour, year after year. At best, Peterson is one of these theoretical idiots. It is so easy to imagine him coming out fro his den, swatting a kid who was interrupting his reverie with commotion, then going back to his den, and checking Active Parenting off on his GTD spreadsheet.

And, yes, my own experience is limited and anecdotal, but the men I have encountered who exhibited overt sexually submissive behavior had personal histories inclusive of having the shit beaten out of them by their fathers or older brothers, and not so much smothering mothers. I agree that smothering mothers are a problem, but the men who exhibit the most sexually dominant behavior usually have more like overly proud mothers. The rule of thumb that you shouldn’t carry a puppy up around your head height actually applies to human infants too, unless you want that child to develop as dominant. In our society, this has pros and cons. It can be easier to live your life as a beta.

As with the limited experience of babies, heterosexual male psychologists do not have experience of how masculine social and sexual behavior can differ. They do not even have a body of work by females reflecting their experience to draw upon. Peterson writes about feeling sickened by the passive needy behavior exhibited by a 4 year old child, and blames it on lack of male authority figure or smothering over-protective maternal, but he does not question where or why those feelings are arising within him. What internal weakness renders him incapable of recognizing that his role as the adult is to, yes, form the frame, but also unflinchingly exhibit simple care. A very funny, touching moment I once witnessed was when my father-in-law, who was an old school stick in the mud IXTJ, visited with my children for the first time in years. My daughter, age 3, was accustomed to my warm father as Grandpa, so she instantly climbed up in her new grandpas lap for a snuggle as he sat there rigid and clueless as a piece of Victorian furniture, but eventually my cutie prevailed and the cool old master was reading storybooks with the best of them.

In summary, Peterson is an idiot.

ertyu
Posts: 1414
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:31 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by ertyu »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:15 am
Peterson writes about feeling sickened by the passive needy behavior exhibited by a 4 year old child, and blames it on lack of male authority figure or smothering over-protective maternal, but he does not question where or why those feelings are arising within him.

In summary, Peterson is an idiot.
Yes.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6636
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by jennypenny »

@7W5 -- I'm going to respectfully disagree about JBP. It's probably not worth getting into the weeds about it since I suspect the biggest difference is that we have very different life experiences, different needs and values, and operate in very different social structures IRL. We probably also set out to teach our children a different set of values. No judgment here on which way is 'right' -- no such thing -- only saying that JP speaks to people based on what is right for them.


I'm also opposed to purity tests since most people fail at some level, especially in the social sciences. I always assume that people like Harris, JBP, etc, go into a field not because they have already mastered it but because they have wrestled with it personally, which is why the issue speaks to them on some level.

Alphaville
Posts: 2012
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Alphaville »

@7w5

ahahaha! nice book picks and good luck with them.

for lighter fare (but not stupid at all) see if you can watch that mike leigh movie also.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1045670/

*do not* watch the trailer- terrible! the trailer is stupid and distorts everything with “explaining.” ugh! marketing *kills* art.

trust me on it though, i swear by it.

Campitor
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor »

Whenever any negative comments are spoken about someone, such as JBP, I like to go straight to the source to see if it's unwarranted or deserved. So I purchased his book since this thread about JBP is 22 pages long at this point; my curiosity got the better of me.

In his book "12 rules for life", he has a chapter dedicated to children. The chapter is titled "Rule 5: Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them". He states that children who are not disciplined in the appropriate manner, a combination of rewarding good behavior and disciplining bad behavior with the least amount of force, they grow up to be disliked by their parents and the general population which diminishes their options and chances of success. He favors positive rewards over negative rewards but states there are children that do not respond to positive rewards alone and some form of physical punishment (he considers time-outs to be physical punishment) is required.

Whenever physical punishment is used, it should start at the lowest level i.e., timeouts, toy deprivation, sent to bed early, etc. Application of force should start only if needed and only at the most light level such as a soft jab to the chest or a finger flick to the hand. It should never been done in anger or in retaliation. The goal is to rectify poor behavior that will result in lasting negative consequences socially or physically.

He states that each child is unique and there's no "one size fits all" application of discipline. Therefore its up to the parents to carefully consider the type of personality their child has and carefully measure the outcomes of the discipline that has been applied.

He also states that rules and discipline should be kept to a minimum to avoid stifling a child's development and creativity.

Not sure how this squares with the claim JBP is an idiot - his approach to discipline seems to be nuanced and carefully considered or so it seems per his book. I'm sure JBP, like the rest of us, is not perfect when it comes to "walking the talk" but what I've read so far in "Rule 5" doesn't give me any reason to discount his approach to disciplining children.

Alphaville
Posts: 2012
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Alphaville »

"Rule 5: Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them".

easily translated to iatrogenic situations such as:

“my daughter acts very independent and the general population dislikes independent girls so i will take her books away until she learns to act submissive”

“my son is gay and me and the general population of this town dislike gays so i will give him time out in the basement until he acts like a ‘real man’”

“my children are questioning religion, i can’t tolerate unbelievers, i will have to spank them until they convert.”



the real problem of authority is finding the right measure of it between the obvious dumb extremes of “none” and “absolute”

jordan’s public statements (i won’t buy his books) are all asking for more authority and/or submitting to the authority of people, the lobster hierarchy, the bible, etc. i.e, “let’s make more normies.”

is there a passage in his book where he argues against authoritarianism? that doesn’t seem to be a part of his schtick but maybe there’s something there?

the only time he seems to speak like a rebel is against these fictional theories and academics he keeps making up (he couldn’t give zizek a single name). elsewhere though, he seems to be all about confirmity. am i missing something?

in other words, i see him arguing for an authoritarianism of the right against an authoritarianism of the left. not against authoritarianism as he claims.

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1466
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Mister Imperceptible »

I think this is what Paglia is talking about when the adherents of Lacan, Derrida and Foucault take out their red pens and deconstruct (“easily translated”) the text as sexist or racist.

It is the principle of anti-charity. Being a responsible parent gets equated to enforcing some demented tyrannical patriarchy. The burden is not on Peterson (or others with similar ideas) to prove he is not a fascist. That people believe he should bear that burden demonstrate to me a pathological resistance to even the most reasonable structure.

The efforts of Peterson seem to me a reconstruction after and against the deconstruction. The deconstructionists do not seem to have a real, lasting goal.
Last edited by Mister Imperceptible on Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6612
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@jp:

Dunno. Likely I was much more err on the side of laissez faire than you or most in my parenting style, but my three very consistently enforced rules were:

1) Eat what is served or fruit, muffins and yogurt. Those are your choices. Yes, all the muffins will be oatmeal until the 50 lb bag I bought at the food auction runs out.

2) Do not run into the road. Do not eat stuff growing in the grass. Do not hit your sister or other children. Do not cut off your sisters hair and encourage her to break eggs on the floor. Do not scream on the bus. Do not jump out of the tree. Do not hit your sister with your arm cast. Do not throw your puppies poop into the neighbors yard because their dog pooped in our yard.

3) You will be in your bedrooms at 8 pm. You do not have to sleep, but your only other choice is quiet reading.

In retrospect, Rule 3 was the best, because now I have two more people I can talk to about books over lunch.

@Campitor:

I agree with the basic premise that you should attempt to raise your children to be likable. However, the thought of embarking on a Skinnerian plan to raise the voltage of corporal punishment in this attempt turns my stomach. Also, the main point I was trying to make is that Peterson doesn’t seem to have the self-awareness necessary to ask himself whether it might be the case that he is just the sort of highly irritable SOB that is most likely to dislike any sort of naturally childlike behavior. I sure as heck wouldn’t hire him to be my nanny.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 12858
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by jacob »

Time out!

The "lynch mob" rule is basically intended to curb the natural human enthusiasm for the opinionated dog-piling that internet-anonymity affords. If you wouldn't walk up to someone and tell them what you think about them IRL, you shouldn't do it online either. That doesn't mean you can't critique or put someone on trial online but it needs to be in a place where they can/will defend themselves. I really mean it!

I think the "public-person" concept belongs to a past era with national TV and newspapers. Since the internet it's become much more of a sliding scale.

It's easy to forget that just because X is well-known to your bubble, it doesn't mean that X is known to the general public.

Try asking someone outside your special-interest cicle if they've ever heard of "Jordan Peterson" or "Jacob Lund Fisker". If the answer is generally "no" or "maybe heard the name", they're not a public person.---Because the public is 3-4 orders(*) of magnitude larger than some corner of the interwebs.

(*) Count it as 100%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%, ... of the general population.

Insofar one is a public person, one has the budget for engaging in the conversation at the national level. One most likely has an agent/lawyer/spin-doctor for representation or damage-control. One is not a public person as much as a public persona that's being managed.

This is orders of magnitude different than being a youtuber, subject of the occasional article, or figure-head of an internet subculture. At this level people are not asking to be a public punching bag for shits'n'giggles or a canvas for anonymous people to project their personal issues. Insofar they're used inconsiderately as such they might just leave the scene.

While this may be appealing to the tribal-minded, consider what the consequences of the overall level of interaction and variety of ideas on the scene are when this becomes the norm.

Overall: Remember the human and follow the same standards online as you would IRL.

Post Reply