Peterson on "hyper" Intellectualism.

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3969
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Peterson on "hyper" Intellectualism.

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:47 am

Also, since I am currently reading a very good book on the topic of "Scale", it seems pretty obvious that it is a mighty leap to go from sharing millions year old dominance hierarchy structure with lobsters defining us to sharing 2000 year old religious basis for culture defining us.

I find Peterson's explanation for the origin of sharing behavior, as related to sacrifice, thoroughly unconvincing. And, I believe he is hung from his own petard, because he suggests that consciousness is what separates humans from animals, and the practice of sharing or sacrifice is consequent to consciousness of likely future consequences of current actions. However, animals exhibit sharing behaviors very frequently. For instance, the classic Dominant example of the barnyard rooster. If a rooster has 5 hens in his circle, he will hunt worms and distribute them in even-handed manner to all of his mates; one for Abbie, one for Bessie, one for Cassis, one for Dossie, etc. And other primates trade favors such as grooming all the time. So, by Peterson's own premise that behavior reveals belief, it is pretty obvious that a chimp is purposefully saving up social capital by frequently engaging in grooming behavior. Not all that different from the manner in which a human female will bring multiple casseroles to the fresh widower in her bible study circle in the hopes that he might choose to start irritably bossing her around.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 2516
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Peterson on "hyper" Intellectualism.

Post by Riggerjack » Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:41 am

I've looked into this guy a bit. Some of what he says is very impressive, some less so. But in the soft sciences, our language is not as precise as in the hard sciences. Mental models are harder to transfer.

So, while 7w5 can find many inconsistencies in her interpretation, I'm not sure they are flaws.

For instance, I am agnostic atheist. If there is a God, I'm pretty sure the christians wouldn't recognize him. But in Peterson's model, I'm a Christian, as I was born and raised in a Christian culture. Inheriting values and norms of a Christian history. And as an atheist, I can agree with the religious types that many atheists seem to work from faith based models as well. Faith in science is still faith, more so when the science doesn't support the faith. Is this religious? Again, this is quibbling over terms.

As a role model, I doubt a young man could find a better example. But to believe that his models are true, or even contain the truth, is to misunderstand what he is saying, I believe.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3969
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Peterson on "hyper" Intellectualism.

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:15 pm

Whatever. Perhaps I am suffering from projection based on previous life experiences (combined with muddled recall of plot line of "Tristram Shandy"), but I still think I would find myself hiding out in my car listening to "Cherry Bomb" by the Runaways full-blast, (and maybe even smoking a doobie!), if I found myself in relationship with such a fine upstanding model of moral order. I would need the doobie, because it was the 2nd Saturday of the month, so I knew he would reliably appear at the foot of my bed, donned in modest striped pajamas, when the clock struck 9 PM, to perform his monogamous obligation generously upon my person. "F*ck, I shouldn't have smoked so much Now I am going to giggle inappropriately. F*ck. Now, I am giggling. Aaaaah...no! Please, Daddy, don't spank me. No, I won't turn the other cheek. Aaaaah....!"

My point being that is the sort of thing that happens when you blindly promote the practice of dominance without considering the psychology of submission.

pukingRainbows
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 5:56 pm

Re: Peterson on "hyper" Intellectualism.

Post by pukingRainbows » Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:14 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:15 pm
My point being that is the sort of thing that happens when you blindly promote the practice of dominance without considering the psychology of submission.
I'd like to hear more about what you mean by this. I've never really thought of his ideas in this framework and I'm also not familiar with the framework in general.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:45 pm
"Here's a productive symbolic idea: the future is a cheerful round-heeled woman "
Also I found this interesting! But I also don't understand what you mean. Please feel free to expand on your idea. I'm interested to try and understand it.
Thank you!

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 2516
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Peterson on "hyper" Intellectualism.

Post by Riggerjack » Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:12 pm

My point being that is the sort of thing that happens when you blindly promote the practice of dominance without considering the psychology of submission.
I agree, the D/s model is your own. What Peterson is talking about overlaps what you are talking about, but neither of you is talking about what the other is.

For instance, most of what you say about D/s relationship meshes nicely with my observations of how people behave, though I wouldn't have used those terms before reading what you have written. And while what you say does match the inclinations of many, it is niether universal in strength or application.

Rather than reading his model and comparing it to yours, you seem to be trying to fit his model within yours, and finding fault with his, where the model doesn't fit. There is a problem where it doesn't fit, but just noting the problem doesn't help you identify it. It could be that you are misapplying the model, it could be that you are wrong, or he is wrong, or both of you are wrong, or you are trying to feed the wrong information.

And this is why soft sciences are so often wrong. We just don't have even terminology established, let alone the real science. That doesn't make it useless, it just makes it harder.

Personally, I view his work like fatherly advice. Just because someone lived it, thought about it, then said it doesn't make it right, or valuable to me. I take what I can use, and dismiss the rest. That's what I mean by roll model. Someone who has something relevant to teach, not someone who is right. Should I find someone who is right, I'll be sure to post it, but so far all I have found is people who are less wrong than I am, in specific areas.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3969
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Peterson on "hyper" Intellectualism.

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:43 am

@pukingRainbows:

I was being a bit silly with my "the future is a cheerful, round-heeled woman" comment, but I was attempting to make the point that it is not unusual for humans to project their own personality on all sorts of abstractions, including quite possibly "the future." Ergo, if you inhabit a population where the majority of humans (40%), or the majority of humans in power, are the Judgmental Father type (SJ temperament, male gender) or Tiger Mom (SJ temperament, female gender), within a culture advanced enough that social interactions with other humans are more likely to influence life-outcome than interactions with the raw environment, then it will be difficult for you to notice any discrepancy between the way you things ought to work and the way they do work. OTOH, if your personality type/gender (ENTP female) is more poorly represented in the human population (only 1.5%) then it is more difficult to find role models by reading Bible stories, and you may only find your personality type featured in cautionary tales (Pandora?)meant to frighten SJ children back within boundaries. The only Princess I can think of that might have been an ENTP, living on her wits in the moment, would be Scheherazade.

In the story about the "virgin" Mary, as told in the Qu'ran, she is saved from severe judgment for her "slutty" behavior, by the fact that her child, the Prophet Jesus, was so extremely intelligent, even though he was just a toddler he was able to verbally frame a defense for his mother, a la "How could her behavior be wrong, when the result is so great?" High sex drive in human females is well-correlated with high intelligence in their offspring, low waist to hip ratio, high fertility, and the likelihood of multiple attractive male sex partners throughout lifespan.

One of the problems with the cultural enforcement of strict monogamy is that it expands the dull norm. The average size of the human brain has actually shrunk in the course of the last several thousand years. Some blame technology, but pretty clear to me that strict enforcement of monogamy is much more likely culprit.

@Riggerjack:

Gotcha. I had to read the part of "Fascinating Womanhood" where Helen Andelin explains how it is possible to allow yourself to be dominated by your husband even if you believe he is less intelligent than you about 5X before I got it, but finally it sank in. Dominance is about possessing the power and taking on the responsibility to make decisions. It does not necessarily require the possession of correct information upon which to base those decisions. So, an intelligent woman can relax in relationship with a less intelligent Dom, as long as he does not suffer from arrogant dysfunction which would blind him to the fact of her superior intelligence.

Actually, to give Peterson due credit, he alluded to the fact that he was not offering his full model vis-a-vis submission at one point in the book. I don't know why you would say he is talking about something entirely different when he started out the book with a story about lobster sexuality and described the attractive female lobsters as being vulnerable. Of course, human beings have a much greater variety of complex sexual strategies than lobsters, just like human beings have a much greater variety of food acquisition strategies than lobsters. I mean, I could attempt to write a book explaining all of human sexuality on the factoid I once read that suggested that human penises have helmet/plunger shaped heads because some species compete sexually at the level of scooping out the semen of the guy that went before you, and although it might prove provocative and cause some controversy, I doubt anybody would adopt it as a role model for their own behavior.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 2516
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Peterson on "hyper" Intellectualism.

Post by Riggerjack » Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:43 pm

So, an intelligent woman can relax in relationship with a less intelligent Dom, as long as he does not suffer from arrogant dysfunction which would blind him to the fact of her superior intelligence.
Seems to work for my wife. :D

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 2516
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Peterson on "hyper" Intellectualism.

Post by Riggerjack » Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:51 pm

And more to the point, Peterson doesn't seem to be a philosopher. His model is not internally consistent. That doesn't mean it doesn't work, it means use what you can, file the rest away for further review at another time.

He seems to be focused on general rules to help individuals be better individuals, in the hopes that a society of better individuals is a better society. This is a different approach from the philosophers he likes to reference. It's probably to be expected from a psychologist, though.

Mikeallison
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:26 am

Re: Peterson on "hyper" Intellectualism.

Post by Mikeallison » Mon Apr 02, 2018 2:33 am

Riggerjack wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:51 pm
His model is not internally consistent.
We are beings that experience life as both individual and social creatures, what about us can ever be consistent? We are walking contradictions, which is why we can't get our shit straight, I think.

But anyway, This Peterson guy talks about Jung all the time, but I see Feuerbach here. Any of you guys dabble in "the essence of Christianity"? Regularly touted as a precursor to Marxism, but I think old Feuerbach got it right where Marx messed up. Marx was a relativist, Feuerbach thought that there was something concrete there in human nature.

He believed that "consciousness of the species" was where it was at, and that is something more complex than "grooming" (although I could go for some grooming right about now). Anyway being conscious of the species is recognizing that you are part of something greater, but at the same time there is the epiphany that you are something separate and isolated, otherwise how could you come to that conclusion at all? A cog doesn't contemplate the machine.

So anyway the voluntary act of submitting yourself "to the greater good" is what he saw as the defining feature of humanity. "I know that I am me, and possessing that knowledge I still choose to put others ahead of me" not out of instinct, but out of conscious action and awareness.

I'm at a disadvantage because I have not read Peterson like you guys, I've only watched the longer interviews on YouTube, but that is the vibe I'm getting from him on alot of levels. When he talks about religion, I don't think he is speaking literally, he seems to be pointing towards the idea of god as a manifestation of a greater awareness of the species.

He seems to take the old western/Christian ideas of morality, and say dont throw these away just because they seem to be rooted in superstition.They are the product of a long and hard road, and paid for in generations of pain and suffering. Why toss them out, just because they confused the symbol, with the actual thing itself? They have brought us this far, haven't they? And while the symbol (Christ, God, etc) may be a figment of our collective imagination, the thing (humanity) is very real, and this culture and its attendant morals have brought us a long ways out of the darkness, they are not impotent relics, but a valid guideline in which to live a purposeful life of service and humility.

Anyway I may have hit the sauce a bit to hard tonight so I apologize if I'm ranting and making no sense, think I'll hit the hay before I make too much of an ass out of myself.

enigmaT120
Posts: 1031
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: Peterson on "hyper" Intellectualism.

Post by enigmaT120 » Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:12 pm

"So anyway the voluntary act of submitting yourself "to the greater good" is what he saw as the defining feature of humanity. "I know that I am me, and possessing that knowledge I still choose to put others ahead of me" not out of instinct, but out of conscious action and awareness."

Man my religion tells me to do that, but I don't see that it defines humanity at all. And without some higher power telling me to do so I don't see where rationality can really come up with that directive. I've read several attempts and they all end up looking like attempts to prove their own postulates.

jennypenny
Posts: 5916
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: Peterson on "hyper" Intellectualism.

Post by jennypenny » Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:14 am

There's more to it when you read all of Peterson's writings. Peterson uses language that a religious person might interpret slightly differently which makes it hard to interpret his writings out of context. It's also complicated by the fact that a lot of his ideas were developed when he was agnostic but has since circled back to some form of belief. The confusing use of religious terms muddies the water IMO.

@enigma--JBP's main point with regard to what you posted is that during our evolution, we only survived if we were functioning members of a larger group. In that respect, submitting to the greater good was a way to solidify our place in the group and give us the chance of reproducing. Peterson suggests that we should still do that even though our survival doesn't necessitate it anymore. His whole point is that we are much happier when we purposely socialize in groups, and putting the group first is a good way to do this.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3969
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Peterson on "hyper" Intellectualism.

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:24 am

Well, I must admit that I greatly enjoyed watching the live TV production of "Jesus Christ Superstar" on Easter evening, so... :lol:

Peterson grew up in the rare circumstances of affluence and rural setting of highly productive Canadian oil town. So, obviously, the stereotypical Ivory Tower egghead is going to seem rather pointlessly effete to him. However, he also writes about friends of his youth, who in his opinion never fulfilled their potential, because they did not choose to expand their acquaintance to include more successful people. So, he also clearly understands the downside of rural stagnation. I don't know why he doesn't straightforwardly suggest that relative isolation from the rest of society is a problem for both rurals and academics. I don't know why he doesn't realize that relative isolation is necessary for both the production of first order raw materials and the conservation of nth order intellectual production.

I think the societal function of Academic centers is misunderstood for many of the same reasons that the social functions of Financial centers are misunderstood. A 3 year old can comprehend what the guy in a hard hat directing the work of some other guys running machinery is doing. When I was 6, I started crying on my way home from school on Father's Day because I had been given the assignment of making a card with a picture of what my father did at work, and I had no clue what a person who oversaw corporate appeals to the I.R.S. did during his work day. All I knew was that I needed to use a whole lot of gray crayon. The work of Bob the Builder is tangible in the moment. Not so much the work of the financial analyst that made the very large construction loan possible, not so much the academic work that made the publication of the book of "simple" formulas which the builder intermittently consults possible.

Now that the internet provides the means for information to readily flow both upstream and downstream from any given realm to another, it seems to me that social stratification is simultaneously becoming more superficial and brittle. IOW, more people are talking more different shit talk, while actually walking more of a similar walk.

Mikeallison
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:26 am

Re: Peterson on "hyper" Intellectualism.

Post by Mikeallison » Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:31 pm

jennypenny wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:14 am
The confusing use of religious terms muddies the water IMO.
Ya, People seem to immediately peg him as a fundamentalist when they hear that language. Rogan tried to call him on it, but I don't think it went where he expected. If you listen to him it seems like he is using it metaphorically half the time, literally the other half. It is very confusing.

People are usually more organized in their writing, is he more specific about his beliefs in his book? Has it been worth the read in your opinion?

Mikeallison
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:26 am

Re: Peterson on "hyper" Intellectualism.

Post by Mikeallison » Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:03 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:24 am
I think the societal function of Academic centers is misunderstood
This is an easy one for me to see with the STEM fields. In the social "sciences" It is a little tougher for me to figure out if they serve any greater purpose to society. They certainly cause a good deal of problems, if the current crop of university grown antifa members are any indication. If they made the switch from indoctrination to education, I might be more charitable.

Post Reply