Jordan Peterson

[Crusader]

i’ll just have more žižek. have you ever watched his “the pervert’s guide to cinema”? great fun!

I have thing with Zizek, he has always annoyed the hell out of me. I find him incredibly conceited and cannot stand him. Not really sure why.

[jacob]

The usual joke about psychology students at the university/dorms was that you couldn't get admitted unless you had at least one psychological issue yourself. This can be both a strength and a liability depending on the maturity (level of adult development) in the therapist. The highly mature therapist would contain both the solution (presumably from education/training rather than projecting) and the problem within themselves as they have reconciled both within themselves. IOW, they own the problem and the solution in a "has-a" sense. The less mature have not reconciled the problem and the solution and indeed their problem might blind them to solutions or lead them to particular solutions (solutionism). The relation here is more of an "is-a". (Actual humans are more of wild combination of various is-a and has-a facets.)

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.

As always, whether something is perceived as "profound truths" depends on the Wheaton level differential between the student and the teacher. At least I think that's why there's such disagreement. The widely regarded book seemed to me to be a "Adulting101 for young men with a biblical/allegorical slant"---like didn't your parents teach you this? Basically the same way I see Dave Ramsey's stuff. OTOH, it's quite clear that the answer to the parental question in many cases is a solid no as parents were off to dual income and the kids were raised in institutions.

So yeah ... most seem to have a phase where they believe they've found the one answer to life, the universe, and everything. Peterson has provided one such answer. To me, though, the problem is not with him but with his followers as they summit Mt Stupid on their way to expertise.

[Alphaville]

I have thing with Zizek, he has always annoyed the hell out of me. I find him incredibly conceited and cannot stand him. Not really sure why.

elite types can be grating, in any field. eg i can’t stand cristiano ronaldo (but cmon, he’s easy to hate )

with žižek, he’s read more stuff than most, and he’s read things most of us can’t even understand, so to hear him spout about it freely can be grating i suppose.

e.g. lacan-—i can’t penetrate lacan’s accursed jargon, and there žižek goes quoting him like they had beers together or something (maybe they did). i could be jealous i suppose, but i admire his great feats instead.

might be also that you have greater cultural proximity than me, and can read social cues that are invisible to me, or relate to his persona in a different way than me.

i just see a big fat sloppy clown saying very clever things.

i still ain’t reading lacan though, not unless held at gunpoint.

[Crusader]

with žižek, he’s read more stuff than most, and he’s read things most of us can’t even understand, so to hear him spout about it freely can be grating i suppose.

Ah! Here we go. This is one of the things that bothers me with Peterson as well. He says something complicated, and people tend to conclude that it therefore must be profound and that THEY are the ones who are stupid, instead of the thing being gibberish/nonsensical. I think his Maps of Meaning book is like that (although I haven't read it).

If you can't simplify it and explain it to different audiences (ranging from kids to experts, i.e. in simplest to most complicated terms), you are a fraud in my book.

EDIT: to be clear, I don't deny that Peterson and Zizek are useful for other people, I am just talking about my personal preferences.

[Crusader]

like didn't your parents teach you this? [...] it's quite clear that the answer to the parental question in many cases is a solid no as parents were off to dual income and the kids were raised in institutions.

It's not just that. Not everyone has optimal parents. Sometimes kids come from broken homes, or in some cases, parents are not good role models, even if they mean well. Because of things like this, I would even think that making sure these things are taught at institutions is a good thing. However, you need good, motivated, well-paid teachers (and a good curriculum that people will agree on).

[7Wannabe5]

If you can't simplify it and explain it to different audiences (ranging from kids to experts, i.e. in simplest to most complicated terms), you are a fraud in my book.

Clearly, you have never attempted to instruct 6 year old children on the concept of solar system mechanics. It’s tricky, because (shocking but true!), many of them do not even know the name of the planet on which they reside. You ask and you’re going to get something like 1/4 of them guessing Mars.

One of my favorite bits by Buckminster Fuller is a diatribe against scientists for lying to children through continued use of the expression “sundown.”

That said, some humans like to play or tinker or iterate with new-to-them words, concepts, ideas as means towards integration. Zizek is likely one of these people. Peterson actually strikes me more as the dull outline type thinker highlighted with a bit of narrative drama. Like a rigid Walmart artificial Christmas tree with some dangerously sputtering, old-fashioned, stinky suet candles balanced on its limbs.

[jacob]

If you can't simplify it and explain it to different audiences (ranging from kids to experts, i.e. in simplest to most complicated terms), you are a fraud in my book.

You meant like this right ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sweN8d4_MUg

[Riggerjack]

If you can't simplify it and explain it to different audiences (ranging from kids to experts, i.e. in simplest to most complicated terms), you are a fraud in my book.

Well, that's going to limit the ideas you are exposed to. Do you find that comforting? I find that rule makes me an unintentional fraud.

Limiting yourself to ideas that are easily communicated, seems really boring. How do you cope with the repetition/boredom? Or is this some kind of resource allocation plan, and after the easy ideas are embraced, you use some rule to stop looking for new ideas, and activate some other routine, instead?

I think I would be healthier if I stopped searching/exploring mental space, and instead spent the time developing aerobic capabilities. Is that the sort of idea you are trying to communicate?

[7Wannabe5]

It did just occur to me that you don’t even have to instruct 6 year old children on the topic of gender. They consider themselves to be experts.

[Crusader]

@7Wannabe5
OMG I have never heard of this Buckminster Fuller guy, I like him, thanks! I have a thing with adults lying to children. One of my earliest memories involve my parents lying to me about some TV show that supposedly got cancelled that week that I wanted to watch on Sunday 10pm, which was past my bedtime because the next day I would have to go to kindergarten. I found out that it wasn't actually cancelled and threw a temper tantrum, and turned into a lifelong neurotic skeptic

@jacob
YES. I also realised that I am on the same level as the 14-year old in this field

@Riggerjack
No, I don't want to discourage exploration of ideas on a personal level. But, if you are not able to "zoom" in and out to see the bigger/more detailed picture, I feel like that there is something off with your own understanding. If I am being charitable, it might just mean that you are a bad communicator.

But there is more than that. I feel like there are people who (whether consciously or subconsciously) obfuscate what they say, instead of actually trying to calibrate to the understanding of the audience. And they do this either to appear interesting or smart or eloquent, OR because they can't see things at different "levels". In either case, not good.

[7Wannabe5]

It might be that those people are more self-involved or less self-conscious. They don’t usually or immediately concern themselves with viewpoint of other. IOW, opposite of how we all felt and behaved in junior high. That’s kind of where I’m at in old age. The slobby clown look is kind of a giveaway, but I do curl my hair for a date. Of course, now you are wondering if I would do Zizek, and the answer is yes.

Maybe it’s not best practice, but I think given the overall balance of the internet, there should be some small place granted where an old woman can declare male public figures more or less sexually attractive on the basis of their performed intellectual prowess.

[jacob]

The skill of teaching lies in being able to zoom in and out to different levels of comprehension. A teacher does not necessarily have to be able to span and cover a range that incorporates the proverbial 5th grader but the wider the span, the greater the challenge.

From a non-teacher's perspective being able to perceive issues (problems and solutions) from multiple perspectives does indicate greater levels of intellectual intuition and maturity.

On the flip-side of that the ability to perceive many different perspectives can be rather stifling in terms of personal conviction One tends to get bogged down in "what-ifs" and "but there's also ..".

On the flip-flip-side being unable to dumb things down to a 5th grade level doesn't imply incompetence or irrelevance.

[ertyu]

Of course, now you are wondering if I would do Zizek, and the answer is yes.

I support you. Guy seems like he's got the good coke, too

sniffle sniff rub nose talk talk talk

[Crusader]

@7Wannabe5
Haha, yes that was exactly what I was wondering!!! Anyway, you don't need to change your viewpoint in order to change how you communicate, and if you do, it doesn't mean you are self-conscious. Quite the opposite, I would think.

Having said that, I must admit that I do find deviants from the norm attractive, probably because on some deep level, I feel that my own life is boring or not what I wanted it to be. If you do find such a place on the Internet, let me know. Sexual attraction is a mystery to me, and what women find attractive has often surprised me (hell even my own preferences have often surprised me).

[7Wannabe5]

@ertyu:

Moot! Further research reveals that he rates Argentinian super models, whereas I rate maybe your grouchy uncle.

@Crusader:

I may have to create it myself. GILF on IILF or something like that. Post 1 might be an erotic time travel piece in which I imagine the possibility of relieving J. S. Mill of his rumored virginity, entitled “Utility.”

[Alphaville]

Ah! Here we go. This is one of the things that bothers me with Peterson as well. He says something complicated, and people tend to conclude that it therefore must be profound and that THEY are the ones who are stupid, instead of the thing being gibberish/nonsensical. I think his Maps of Meaning book is like that (although I haven't read it).

If you can't simplify it and explain it to different audiences (ranging from kids to experts, i.e. in simplest to most complicated terms), you are a fraud in my book.

EDIT: to be clear, I don't deny that Peterson and Zizek are useful for other people, I am just talking about my personal preferences.

2 notes on that

one is that things can actually be complicated without having to imply that a person is stupid. no need to take things personally. some things just go against our intuition and must be studied and described in specialized languages. that’s just how technical knowledge works- it takes training.

two is that zizek for me is the actual translator. without having to make a whole explanation of laca, he can allude to or bring out things that make sense to me with some funny jokes. but that’s to me, with my background & somewhat technical knowledge of some things. which might enable me to get the joke.

three, or extra bonus (for note one: one and a half?), is that certain things can’t be grasped directly and require allusion, paradox, poetry, etc. reality does not always correspond to language, even technical language. a popular example of that is zen koans which are supposed to lock you out of discursive thought and allow you to grasp reality at another level.

anyway, zizek is funny and contradicts himself but that allows my brain to go “ah ha ha ha haaaa so that’s how that works.”

You meant like this right ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sweN8d4_MUg

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. btw nobody consents to be born in the first place so consent is a moot point. and “store information in dna” without saying how is also hs graspable.

otoh if they had gotten into the actual technical biochemistry of the reactions i’d have been lost *swiftly*

I support you. Guy seems like he's got the good coke, too

sniffle sniff rub nose talk talk talk

cocaine gives you a dry mouth. he could use some!

[jacob]

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]

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]

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]

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):

Peterson going nuts from eating weird diet is more true and more funny.

he set his house in the wrong order!

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