Jordan Peterson

[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.)

[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]

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

[Alphaville]

@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]

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]

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 (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]

Fair enough! To each his own.

[Alphaville]

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

[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]

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.

[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]

@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]

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]

"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]

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.

[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]

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.

[Campitor]

However, the thought of embarking on a Skinnerian plan to raise the voltage of corporal punishment in this attempt turns my stomach.

I didn't interpret his Rule 5 in this manner. He states that each child is unique and any corrective action needs to be carefully considered. Discipline should start at the lowest level possible and only when required; some children will self correct with a polite warning.

Negative reinforcement is the means of last resort to be used sparingly only when children transgress. Parents are acting as proxies for the outside world. It's better a child learns the negative consequence of acting poorly by someone who loves them than a stranger who might retaliate to an irrational degree.

I think JBP's intentions are in the right place even if in practice he isn't living up to his own 12 rules perfectly - but he does seem to be trying. I don't know how graceful I would be if I was singled out so vehemently by so many.

[Alphaville]

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.

what paglia is really complaining about is being marginalized from academia, so she’s been ranting about the people who were fashionable in the 70s or 80s when she was trying to get tenure. and yes, academia can be a political cesspit. but just like any other cesspit, nothing special about it. try getting into advertising, lololol.

and parents don’t go reading foucault for child rearing advice (this would be hilarous. also terribly wrong.)

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.

we all require structure. again, the people who want “no structure” are peterson’s fictions. i’ve only met one real anarchist all my life—and he wasn’t a humanities person, but a scientist. last i heard he’s still taking great personal risks to protest injustices.

the real question to ask is in what amount and on what basis do we establish authority and build our structure. we ask it in politics, we ask it in the family, we ask it in business, we ask it here.

we’re not lobsters, we’re not bronze-age societies, we’re not paleoman. we in the west live in postindustrial societies

and it’s our nature to question— just like the bronze-age greeks questioned. only we’e in different circumstances and *we can’t go back*

in my opinion, peterson just wants people to obey him, and preaches a backwards poisonous pedagogy under the guise of “responsibility.” he makes some good points, then ruins them with dogmatism.

besides, his house is far from perfectly in order, so he disqualifies himself from criticizing the world.

me, i don’t require purity or perfection, only a good argument. so i’ve watched his lectures, debates, etc. and for me peterson’s intellectual demise lies in dogmatism and oversimplification. i.e., “serotonin, hierarchy, the lobster.” too reductionist.

of course, some people want “simple truths” and he provides them. as erich fromm discussed long ago, many people want to escape freedom. not “reedom from” but “freedom to”.

peterson offers his own authoritarism against left authoritarism. i think neither are good. so pass.

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.

critical thinking is never going to provide you with dogmas. you’re expecting pears from the elm tree.

the purpose of critical thinking is not to provide certainties, but to debunk them. the “truth” it provides is reached through a sort of via negativa— it’s what’s left over after probing it. then you probe again.

in natural science, a hypothesis that resists falsification proves true. in the social sciences experimentation is not so easily done so we have a lot of ideology and statistics added to the mix. and the rest of the intractable stuff we can’t know empirically we usually leave for philosophy, so one is going to find endless speculation there, and yes, much of it pointless. but that’s part of what makes us human. thinking is not just utilitarian-- thinking can be an end in itself. even if just to kill the boredom of existence.

anyway, i can’t obey and become a lobster and stop thinking, and so i’ll continue to criticize angry dysfunctional dads because i don’t want to live in their perfectionistic, dysfunctional, shame-based houses. i actually shudder at the thought.

-

eta: for a better advocate of traditional values without the angry blowhard angle, i’d highly recommend john bradshaw, who was an alcoholic priest who had an awakening about his condition, left the priesthood, embraced the recovery movement, and dedicated his life to healing people from shame. he was at the same time conservative and anti-authoritarian.