Jordan Peterson

[hojo-e]

I guess you could say the countries and states that have reached the highest level of human development have maxed out and become decadent thus entering a stage of relative decline because it simply can't get much better, but ... yeah.

I will say precisely this.

Isaiah 5:20

[jennypenny]

Isn't it a lack of morality, not necessarily religiosity, that correlates with decline? Excess usually indicates peak-empire, and that's true regardless of whether the empire is based upon religious belief or not. If you're arguing that a lack of faith foretells decline then I agree, but I'm not sure whether decline causes despair (lack of faith) or despair leads to decline. Again, neither necessarily requires a faith in religion, only a higher power (including any kind of divine ruler).

Religious people may define a 'good' society very differently than secular people, so this is a hard argument to make either way.

ETA: never mind ... maybe I'm misunderstand the gist of the conversation

[IlliniDave]

I don't think Peterson is particularly religious or pro-religious. I think he just points out that societies tend to organize around "narratives" which contain the essence of a value structure to build on. Like it or not, western societies, and more particularly the Anglosphere in Peterson's view, are deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition but with an elevation of individual sovereignty superimposed.

With the decline of theism other -isms are simply put in its place. If you turn left all the way to communism you basically have the state exalted over the individual as God. Go in the other direction and you have essentially the same thing except the state is typically linked to a race/ethnicity. In the last few years we have the emergence of the "illiberal left", which displaced liberals progressives have likened to a religious ideology built on a union of intolerance and identity politics--again exalting a collective over the individual. So there's really just a bait-and-switch going on where one set of guiding tenets (i.e., religion) is replaced by another. Peterson promotes the western tradition not in an effort to promote the religious system that underpinned it historically, but simply because it has a track record of working better than anything else we've tried, despite its imperfections. To him the key to the system appears more the emphasis on individual sovereignty, although one can do far worse than Judeo-Christian ethics for a backdrop.

[7Wannabe5]

@jennypenny:

I agree, because easy enough to see how it could be extended to lack of faith in the market, the economy, technology, Progress, or the capacity of the human brain case being correlated with despair and decline. I very clearly remember being shown a cartoon film-strip in elementary school of up-up-up history of human civilization accompanied by cheerful music.

[Mister Imperceptible]

That's what the Jordan Peterson types miss.

I do have to say though, when "non Jordan-Peterson types" becomes a descriptor, you can't argue that the man can create a brand.

Except that the descriptor was my play on your words.

As Peterson says in the last video @daylen posted, we have an emergent ethic. The Enlightenment was a codification of that emergent ethic, but our ethic is not objective and rational, independent of biology.

As Oswald Spengler would say, every science is dependent on a religion. Peterson might be part of that movement which ushers in the “second religiousness” of our “Faustian super-organism.”

“Atheism, rightly understood, is the necessary expression of a spirituality that has accomplished itself and exhausted its religious possibilities, and is declining into the inorganic.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West

https://hammeringshield.wordpress.com/2 ... -the-west/

http://people.duke.edu/~aparks/Spengler.html

http://people.duke.edu/~aparks/SPENGL.html

http://people.duke.edu/~aparks/SPENGM.html

http://people.duke.edu/~aparks/SPENGQ.html

[BRUTE]

“Atheism, rightly understood, is the necessary expression of a spirituality that has accomplished itself and exhausted its religious possibilities, and is declining into the inorganic.”

literally what

1)how does "a spirituality" accomplish anything, especially itself?
2)how does one exhaust religious possibilities?
3)how does "a spirituality" decline into the inorganic? was it organic before?
4)how is it necessary?

brute literally can't make sense of what this sentence is supposed to mean. and this is true for most of Peterson's religio-babble too.

[IlliniDave]

This conversation with Peterson and Harris seems to touch on some of the most recent twists in this thread. There is a second one out there, apparently they held two of these events. I haven't listened to all of the first one yet, or the second at all, but to me it is admirable that these two guys wanted to continue a discussion not only despite their "disagreement" but because of it, and at least in the small portion I've watched so far, do so respectfully.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D7VB_t0uLE

[7Wannabe5]

His latest video is truely a work of art. It is on the necessity of free speech. Same stuff, but this articulation reminds me of an elegant math proof. The passion is so obvious in his voice and non-verbal behavior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuNeqawPuuY

Maybe watch again and observe the body language of the polite, intelligent, middle-aged individuals in the audience. Also, I beg to differ on the point that his wild leap from modern primate behavior to Piaget's work with young human children to hero narrative is anything resembling tight proof-like. As I noted previously, I actually very much agree with Peterson's take up to a point, maybe 80% of the journey, but at that juncture it seems to me that he goes off rather dangerously cock-eyed under the influence of false premises.

Let me offer an anecdote from my actual work with young children. I was teaching a group of 4 year olds from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds. As Peterson noted in the above clip, children at that age do engage in a good deal of imaginative role rehearsal, inclusive of designation of Alpha. The obvious pick in this group was a sturdy, handsome, good-natured, second-generation Polish boy who was half a head taller than any other child. Throughout the day, two of the girls, one Bengali and one Polish, were bickering about which one of them was his friend, and when nap time rolled around they placed their mats right next to his on either side. The other teacher and I were rather amused by this flagrant display of normal developmental behavior, but it's not any more socially acceptable in a pre-school setting than in Judge Judy's courtroom. So, we calmly repeated the message "In this classroom we are ALL friends." IOW, we did NOT affirm the "truth" of the emotionally driven narrative the children wished to play-act out. We promoted the narrative more conducive to civil society in a learning environment. Acculturation is omni-present.

Over the last 40 years, I have likely read at least 2000 novels that would be roughly sorted under the category of "literature" or higher quality examples of genre, and also a good deal of more popular fiction. Popular novels are popular because they do stick more closely to the simple emotionally-driven narratives we share with our closest, yet still distant, chimp cousins. I mean, it likely would be very difficult to distinguish one of Jane Goodall's field reports from the script for a Chuck Norris movie. We all want to identify with heroes. We all want happy endings. However, for better or worse, the reality of post-post-modern human life is much more complex than that, and this is how we differentiate between light entertainment and worthwhile reading. Anyways, that's what I see (or perhaps project-lol), from my perspective at 53 years of age, listening to a peer lecturing to a group of my peers. I notice how many of them look away for a moment, when what you hear as passion, rings more like brazen naivete in their ears.

[hojo-e]

I haven't listened to all of the first one yet, or the second at all, but to me it is admirable that these two guys wanted to continue a discussion not only despite their "disagreement" but because of it, and at least in the small portion I've watched so far, do so respectfully.

I read somewhere that Peterson is making $70K per month on Patreon and Sam Harris is not far behind. They charged €40pp to the 10,000 people who came to the Dublin event. After costs they would take close to €150K each for one night of respectful disagreement.

Their motives in keeping this discussion going may not be all that admirable.

[IlliniDave]

hojo-e,

It could be that the flow of money is in response to their admirable behavior rather than the cause of it.

[Campitor]

Regardless JP’s motivations, it doesn’t add or detract from his arguments. To refute his claims based on his personal motivations, rather than the facts/points of argument, is to indulge in the ad-hominem fallacy.

For the record I don’t think money is his motivator.

[daylen]

@7w5 I was using the math proof metaphor more loosely to say that the overall structure of the argument and execution were aesthetically pleasing. Jordan does get caried away with his mappings at times, but he spreading a message that promotes a needed form of conversation (so I give him some slack).

I watched the debate with Sam, and it basically went like I expected. Eventually, they get past the language differences and come to the conclusion that they are focused on different things with different levels of intensity... shocker.

[daylen]

The last few minutes they each summarize the debate from their own perspectives. Here is just the summary part.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDx8xdoxjlA&t=127m0s

[Mister Imperceptible]

@hojo-e

I remember reading in Harry Browne that if you are authentically you, the market will find you. I suspect there are many more people who are cynically espousing the mainstream politically correct ideologies than right-wing provocateurs.

At first, Jordan Peterson was embroiled in controversy for refusing to comply with Canadian speech laws. His job at the University of Toronto was in jeopardy because he spoke out. There was no financial reward at the time for taking such a risk. So if he’s making money now for his opinions and lectures, it’s a reward for having balls. As Martin Luther said, “I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.”

Also, Isaiah 40:3.

@brute

As Dr. Peterson has said elsewhere, religion and science are not in opposition, they are together a totality.

The only reason modern humans have society, and technology, and science, is because religion laid the groundwork for humans to live together cohesively, first in tribes, and then finally as nations. Without having a religion, a myth, an ethic, nothing else can follow, and the religious ethic informs the science. Without an ethic to hold a people together, a majority of people would say things like this:

emotionally and practically, brute is a nihilist: he doesn't care if dinosaurs eat all humans and the species dies off.

Fortunately, history provided people with the types like Moses, who, as Peterson explains in the video @daylen posted in defense of free speech, has the religious genius to codify an ethic and give commandments. Without an ethic and cohesion, there would be no Age of Discovery, no Gutenberg Bible, no Enlightenment, no Industrial Revolution. We are all part of a great chain.

The fact that nihilism is growing, is clear indication of decline. The future is not built upon nihilism. Generally, nihilists are not builders or inventors. They live for the now.

Basically, the more religious the place you live in is, the lower the chance that you'll enjoy health, wealth, and wisdom---as the toast goes.

Nietzsche: “Do I strive after happiness? No, I strive after my works!”

Happiness is not a goal. It a side effect. There is a reason Elon Musk came here. There is a reason you are here. Happiness statistics are meaningless to me.

We are all part of a great chain. What it took for us to arrive at this point, is a fantastic statistical improbability. Where we came from, and where we can go, fills me with awe, and gives a feeling that is religious, spiritual, even if I am not an adherent of dogma.

It is where science is in service of some higher goal, that the totality becomes manifest.

“Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman- a rope over an abyss.

A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting.

What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an over-going and a down-going.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ypEaGQb6dJk

[prognastat]

I just wish somebody would ask him why everybody (men AND women) having 3 partners wouldn't be even more egalitarian? I get the downside of 10% of men having 5 wives, while 50% have zero, in terms of social instability, but I would argue that if every woman took on, in part, the responsibility of 3 men, and vice-versa, the situation would be more stable.

Possibly, however I believe quite unlikely.

There are many problems for this to become the case. First there is the problem shown with the Tinder study that women rated 80% of men below average in attractiveness, which naturally isn't true. Men's responses were much closer to the normal distribution one would expect.

There's also the fact that despite our many shift in gender dynamics there has been little shift in who is expected to initiate.

I won't be holding my breath to see these types of things change any time soon and until they do I also don't think women taking on the responsibility for multiple men will be happening.

I think a very large reason behind much of this is the burden of pregnancy and how it has influenced us evolutionarily. Even if we fix this inherent inequality the resulting evolutionary differences between men and women won't be dissipating for quite a long time after unless we start meddling with out genome or something radical like that.

@hojo-e

The argument you make is a distraction that has little to add to the discussion. If he is wrong making a lot of money doesn't make him right, nor does it make him wrong. When he first became part of the discussion it seemed the outcome would be a loss rather than a gain financially. I do have to admit he is a pretty smart marketer, but I don't get the impression that he is cynical in his argumentation.

[7Wannabe5]

@prognastat:

I was a strict serial monogamist until the age of 50. What led to my change of mind on the matter was being in an Islamic marriage for several years. My "ex" had no moral qualms about polygamy, because his religion clearly allowed for it, although I required monogamy as condition of our contract by which he abided. So, after I broke up with him, I asked myself whether there was any truth to the notion that females are significantly more hard-wired for monogamy or is it cultural conditioning? The thought experiment I assigned myself was "What if it was social expectation that every adult has approximately 3 lovers?" What I discovered was it really was not all that difficult to break my lifelong practice of monogamy, if I relieved myself of any anxiety associated with slut-shaming. Therefore, it is my current opinion that the notion that females are inherently more monogamous, absent socio-economic disincentives, is pretty much bunk. However, I will grant that higher levels of testosterone may inherently and irrevocably render total "demand" on the male side of the equation higher, and access to variety of partners is known to heighten testosterone levels and desired number of encounters, so widespread practice of polyamory may prove to be of little benefit to the contingent of men deemed least attractive. The fact that all 3 of my partners were quite attractive would also seem to confirm this result. Unfortunately, I do not yet possess technology skills advanced enough to construct and run compare and contrast models of the "enforced monogamy" vs. 3-leg polyamory sexual systems applied to general population.

I would also note for the record that although philosophically polyamorous, I have been functionally celibate for over 2 months because my BF is 17 time zones away and I don't feel like dating, so I am quite grouchy and anything I post should be taken with large grain of salt. You guys keep making me watch these civilized debates between middle-aged men, and mostly what I end up doing is going by my gut-instinct of which one I'd prefer to knock boots with. I wasn't going for Eric Weinstein at all at the beginning of his debate with Peterson, but by the end I was liking him plenty.

[hojo-e]

The Intellectual Dark Web claims to exist to counter the toxic ideology of the regressive left. Both Peterson and Harris are two of the most prominent members. When he told the story of how they came up with the name for the Intellectual Dark Web, Eric Weinstein said they purposely chose it to provoke a reaction. They got major media attention about the silliness of the name on all the online journals and a million mocking social media posts followed. When the furor died down, Weinstein let the cat out of the bag that it was all a plan to generate attention. Which generated more furor.

That's exactly what Peterson and Harris are doing. Inciting then feeding off the toxicity they claim to disdain.

[BRUTE]

...

brute supposes that, unlike Jordan Peterson, he is not a very serious person. he thinks in reality there is much more randomness and luck involved, and much less Nietzschean drama.

[Mister Imperceptible]

Without the sense of agency or purpose, or drama as you call it, I find getting out of bed to be difficult.

Maybe the feeling of agency is an illusion. But I have find that if one is convinced of the supremacy of randomness and luck and believe your outcome is predetermined, I become pretty defeated and am not good for much, or to myself. Even if randomness and luck account for 99% of the equation, the 1% you can change might make the difference.

Whether the feeling of being defeated is the source of the belief in determinism, or vice-versa, is another matter. I just know that when everyone feels there is nothing to be done, because “nothing can be done/it’s all been done/what’s the point” then rest assured nothing will get done.

[jacob]

@MI - When Dr. Fisker finished grad school, he wanted to pursue the higher goal of an academic career. Dr. Fisker had two job offers: one from the US and one from Germany. He picked the former because the German boss was close to retirement. The plan was to work there 3 years, gain some experience, and then move on. However, in the US he met DW and they got married two years later. Around the same time, the good doctor had applied for a position in Canada because research contracts+visas are limited to 3 years. He did not hear anything back for several months and figured that it would be wise to apply for a green card since otherwise the family would be moving to Denmark once the visa expired after 3 years. One month later, the Canadians called with a job offer. The reason I'm currently here(*) and not in Canada or somewhere else is a 4 week difference in timing courtesy of Canadian bureaucracy. Maybe some admin was on vacation.

I don't see any great narrative on the individual level. I see the uncertainty of the academic job market and a bunch of residence/contract deadlines. If there's a collective narrative, it's probably an emergent quality. But basically, this was serendipity due to the limited (as far as I knew) number of options available to someone who is in a deeply specialized market. There was literally only ~5 different universities in the world where I could work.

(*) And moving on, it gets even more complicated.