Jordan Peterson

Your favorite books and links
ZAFCorrection
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:49 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by ZAFCorrection » Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:41 pm

@jennypenny

I can't speak for others but my main problem with JP is he is like the old dude who is proudly only willing to look at things in a handful of ways and thinks his folksy wisdom can always carry the day no matter the situation or topic. The article touches on this. I see the ERE perspective as being very curious about different ways of looking at things and synthesizing disparate topics. JP thinks there is only one topic. It doesn't surprise me that he is not well received here, even with his focus on individual agency.

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:14 pm

I am of the open-minded synthesizer type, but in public a lot of open-minded synthesizers get shouted down. I have experienced this first hand. Essentially the far left has adopted a “You’re either with us or against us” mentality. As far left opinions are becoming mainstream (no one takes the far right seriously), someone has to be in the trenches, saying that they are wrong. We can be glad that Peterson is doing this dirty work, so we don’t have to. Unless you think it’s cool for SJW dogma to become the only public opinion.

IlliniDave
Posts: 2606
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by IlliniDave » Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:56 am

ZAFCorrection wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:53 pm
An interesting take on forming a take on Jordan Peterson.

https://medium.com/@jonathanrowson/cult ... 717b3f4148
I couldn't slog through the article, but I did go back and listen to the interview Rowson mentioned in the article. It seemed like in a few subtle ways he wanted Peterson to repackage his message a little more generically, and a little more in line with PC/progressive sensibilities. For the most part Peterson was having none of it. I guess I couldn't conjure up an interest in the article because I don't feel a need to have a "take" on Peterson. I just enjoy listening to a traditional Liberal who is willing to hold his ground.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6272
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by jennypenny » Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:15 am

ZAFCorrection wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:41 pm
I can't speak for others but my main problem with JP is he is like the old dude who is proudly only willing to look at things in a handful of ways ...
This is the point I was trying to get at the IDW thread. Most of the better thinkers I've read have some really good ideas and some really bad ideas. I wondered if that's more likely the more intelligent one is. I think we shouldn't discount people's valuable contributions even if they have some glaring flaws.

Ego once mentioned in a thread that he didn't trust someone's judgement as much if they were religious because, to Ego, it demonstrated flawed reasoning. I've thought about what he said a lot over the last few years. I've started to wonder whether a feature of significant intelligence is a willingness to indulge in one's thoughts to the point of it being detrimental or unreasonable. I don't mean indulging in blind thinking but more like fully immersing yourself in your ideas to see where it leads you. I can see where that can lead to great breakthroughs and huge misjudgments, as well as socially unacceptable ideas that go either way.

IlliniDave
Posts: 2606
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by IlliniDave » Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:55 am

jennypenny wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:15 am
This is the point I was trying to get at the IDW thread. Most of the better thinkers I've read have some really good ideas and some really bad ideas. I wondered if that's more likely the more intelligent one is. I think we shouldn't discount people's valuable contributions even if they have some glaring flaws.
I think this dovetails with Peterson's basic argument in favor of free speech: the freedom to be wrong (and potentially "offensive") while exploring ideas in search of what's right. And it fits with Creativity 101 (along with more good ideas, creative people also have more bad ideas than non-creative people simply because they have more ideas).

prognastat
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by prognastat » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:53 am

Well one thing that gets worse the more intelligent you are is that you might be able to reason/convince people you are right even when you aren't simply because they aren't smart enough to counter your points even if they may be right.

The smarter you are compared to those you are arguing with the more likely this can become.

Campitor
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:50 am

prognastat wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:53 am
Well one thing that gets worse the more intelligent you are is that you might be able to reason/convince people you are right even when you aren't simply because they aren't smart enough to counter your points even if they may be right.

The smarter you are compared to those you are arguing with the more likely this can become.
Which is why it's incumbent on the person arguing with a PhD to be very informed on the topic being debated which includes having a good recall of the research that underscore their points; and their critical thinking skills must be honed to spot logical fallacies and weaknesses in the opposing arguments. I can't have much sympathy for a regular never-hit-the-gym layperson who challenges Mike Tyson to a fist fight - same goes for intellectual lightweights debating PhD's.

For clarity, I'm not saying you need a PhD to debate with a professor. I'm saying that you need to be as educated in the subject as a PhD if you're going to have any hope of holding your own in a debate, especially if the debate in question is in the PhD's area of expertise.

ZAFCorrection
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:49 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by ZAFCorrection » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:52 am

@jennypenny

It's definitely possible. Though, being wrong a lot can also just be evidence of taking up permanent residence on mt stupid, having walked there from some semi-adjacent dimension of actual expertise. To be fair to JP, he seems to have two or three good ideas that are well-articulated. But at the same time, I mark intelligence as knowing when to keep your mouth shut. A guy of his age with an intellectual bent should have figured that out by now. His attitude is remarkably similar to the parochial old timers I knew who never left the hometown.

Incidentally, I am an ex-Christian having grown up in a very religious community. I have never held that against anyone, except the cases wherein trying to deal with a practical problem, their only contribution is some combination of "have you prayed about it?", "let's pray about it", "wait on God", etc. Not only is it contextually useless advice, but you can't say anything about it without the risk of seeming impious.

IlliniDave
Posts: 2606
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by IlliniDave » Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:39 pm

ZAFCorrection wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:52 am
... But at the same time, I mark intelligence as knowing when to keep your mouth shut. A guy of his age with an intellectual bent should have figured that out by now ...
Why would he want to do that (whether or not he's figured it out)?

Campitor
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:10 pm

Jordan Peterson is solicited and sometimes paid to offer his opinions in public forums. I would find it odd if he accepted those public engagements and kept silent or rebutted with " I have insufficient data to offer an opinion" repeatedly when asked for his opinion. And he has stated he has insufficient information to offer an opinion on certain topics outside his area of expertise in the past. The problem is that his sycophants accept everything he says as gospel or miss the context of his statements and his detractors wish he'd go away and/or view everything he says as wrong despite any kernels of truth that may be embedded therein or any disclaimers made by Peterson regarding his opinion.

And a lot of people get caught up on his religious parables which imho Peterson is using to highlight psychological principles embedded within religious belief systems, that helped humanity cope with the misery of existence before the advent of more modern science and psychology. I think Peterson is asking his audience to view the psychological structures developed by religion to see if they offer any mechanisms which can be extrapolated to modern interpretations that could help humanity cope with the isolation brought about by technology and population growth. For example, having a common set of religious beliefs, that promote community building, humility, sacrifice, and helping the less fortunate, is useful. Perhaps these useful traits can then be structured into a modern paradigm which is palatable to the masses (like religion was in the past) thereby increasing happiness, decreasing human suffering, and promoting a better community.

ZAFCorrection
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:49 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by ZAFCorrection » Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:19 pm

@iDave:

I can think of two reasons. First, it seems reasonable to infer that as a self-proclaimed intellectual and member of the IDW, one of his goals is engaging in some kind of eternal dialectic. That requires a good amount of listening, thinking, and reading as well as talking. It would also require some effort to not be continually inflammatory so you have people to successfully interact with. Second, ego and a desire to have people think you credible should demand that you not speak much in cases where you are likely to say something stupid.

From a remunerative standpoint, talking a lot seems to work out well for the guy. So maybe that makes it a smart move. But then I still hold the position that all the IDW stuff is treated as much more intellectual than it actually is.

prognastat
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by prognastat » Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:31 pm

If you don't discuss/say anything in cases where you might say something stupid. Rather than saying the stupid thing receiving feedback and improving your ideas. How are you going to learn? And just listening isn't necessarily the best way to learn.

ZAFCorrection
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:49 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by ZAFCorrection » Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:39 pm

@Prognostat

As I mentioned, I did not rule out talking. This is not some binary choice of all talking or no talking.

Campitor
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:14 pm

ZAFCorrection wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:19 pm
It would also require some effort to not be continually inflammatory so you have people to successfully interact with...ego and a desire to have people think you credible should demand that you not speak much in cases where you are likely to say something stupid.
In today's climate, even the most sane ideas based in reason and fact, and expressed with humility, are eviscerated mercilessly and the author of those words painted as a totalitarian bigoted ideologue. So how can you avoid "stupid" (note the quotes) utterances when even logical discourse is viewed as illogical, stupid, and racist/fascist. And to quote Peterson "you have to risk offending people if you want to search for the truth"; this may include saying something stupid. The assumption is that Peterson is knowingly saying something which he believes to be incorrect versus he may actually believe it's correct and is in needed of enlightenment.

A PhD doesn't make Peterson all knowing or an expert in topics outside of his field of study. But if responses, statements, and questions were limited to areas of one's expertise, I imagine we would have little to say to another. It's okay for someone to say something stupid. What's not okay is the dogmatic adherence to error revealed by the introduction of facts and research.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 5230
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:30 pm

On second thought, I guess it is optimal to have an equal proportion of A-level Activists who are B-level Intellectuals on both ends of the spectrum.

It just makes me want to tear my hair out a bit when a brilliant post-modernist, such as Pierre Bourdieu, is lumped into the same category as some possessive-pronoun obsessed bureaucrat. This discussion could be had at a much higher level if true intellect on both sides was respected. For instance, although Bourdieu clearly delineated the cultural aspects of masculine dominance, he maintained that the best means by which to transform or transcend the worst aspects of this tendency was through love. I think this is true, because whatever level of personal gender identification any of us might have as individuals, those of us who have children of the other gender become very cognizant of those associated challenges also.

Also, I would like to note for the record that it is in the most highly educated, most affluent school systems that it is most likely that young boys will be allowed to rough-house up to the point of anything likely to cause injury, in good part because most people with more than a halfway decent education accept the reality of developmental psychology and hormonal influence on behavior. IOW, it is cruel to not accept that "boys will be boys" when you are interacting with 8 year old children, but it is, IMO, just another example of "soft bigotry of lowered expectations" to apply "boys will be boys" to the behavior of grown azz men, no matter how hard, or how droning repetitively, you try to dress it up as something like "the high level to which 'disagreeable' is correlated with 'competent' " :lol:

ZAFCorrection
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:49 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by ZAFCorrection » Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:37 pm

@Campitor

It seems risking stupidity has multiple variables including desire to put something out there in order to learn, desire to express an opinion, concerns about credibility, how much money is on the table, etc. JP does not seem to have any term that would inhibit his move toward that risk, which is kind of weird.

As for the insanity of the public discourse, I'm a big proponent of leaving it alone entirely. I don't really see JP's work as fighting the good fight. The SJW ideology can no doubt do some damage, but it is not an existential threat because it can't survive under its own weight. The average person just cannot keep up with the complex identity diagramming and prosecution and the 51 + Other facebook genders. Though, at this point, I don't think anyone is ever going to stop using old rich white male as the personification of winning the ga...I mean evil.

Campitor
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:04 pm

@ZAFCorrection

I agree to a certain extent with your latest comments. While JP's work may not be elevating public discourse, he is getting young men and women to "clean their rooms". I think people tend to be happier when they learn they are more in control of their emotions and actions rather than accepting the narrative that they have NO control of their lives; this may have the corollary effect of reducing the us versus them mentality which may bring some sanity back into public discourse. Although I wish there was a bit more focus on Jonathon Haidt than Peterson. Haidt does a better job of dissecting the dangers of identity politics and tribalism in a more palatable manner while Peterson just seems to raise the ire of his opponents; he doesn't seem to be convincing anyone in opposition while Haidt seems to make people think more deeply.

prognastat
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by prognastat » Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:12 pm

The thing I would say is that Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt are on different Wheaton levels. People at level 1 might find JP and improve their situation some and hopefully a decent portion would eventually move on to Jonathan Haidt. For many Haidt might be too complex at first though.

IlliniDave
Posts: 2606
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by IlliniDave » Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:56 pm

Hmm. To me Haidt seems less complex than Peterson to follow. I'm not into the whole Wheaton thing, but it's a good point that Peterson (when he's not put into a defensive position) is speaking most often to people in the early stages of personal growth. Haidt is trying to reform "the academy". One could argue Peterson should be doing the same, but instead he's trying to reach directly to the people he feels are being disserved by education. Again for Peterson that's when looking at what he does beyond debating or taking on hostile interviews.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 5230
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:18 am

IlliniDave wrote:To me Haidt seems less complex than Peterson to follow.

Maybe because Haidt, although cognizant of higher degrees of complexity, is better able to offer sensible explanation? Here's what Haidt writes on his own site:
My research examines the intuitive foundations of morality. I have found that moral reasoning is generally done post-hoc, to search for confirmation of our fast, automatic intuitive responses. I am therefore skeptical of the power of reasoning to bring us to the right conclusions, particularly when self-interest or reputational concerns are in play. I therefore became skeptical of direct approaches to fostering ethical behavior -- particularly direct teaching in the classroom. We can't just put moral knowledge into our students' heads, and expect them to implement that knowledge after they leave the classroom.
Here's how Wikipedia describes the sociological work of post-modern thinker Pierre Bourdieu (individual who invented the frequently misunderstood and misapplied meme "symbolic violence"):
Bourdieu's sociological work emphasizes the importance of practices in the social world. Bourdieu was opposed to the intellectualist tradition and stressed that social domination and cultural reproduction were primarily focused on bodily know-how and competent practices in the society. Bourdieu fiercely opposed Rational Choice Theory because he believed it was a misunderstanding of how social agents operate. According to Bourdieu agents do not continuously calculate according to explicit rational and economic criteria. Rather, social agents operate according to an implicit practical logic—a practical sense—and bodily dispositions. Social agents act according to their "feel for the game" (the "feel" being, roughly, habitus, and the "game" being the field).
IOW, Haidt is every bit as post-modern as Bourdieu. He has to be, because that is where we are now.

Post Reply