Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[ShanDog]

Can you narrow that down to a direct quote?

I'm sorry but your summary doesn't really clarify or explain anything.

As it relates to identity politics, JP's criticism of postmodern thought is that it reduces all of history to a hierarchy of oppression and that this is not actually a faithful or instructive way to understand society.

Am I wrong about that?

At work so I cant go through the video sorry, but it's within a minute or two of the timestamp.

You aren't wrong about how Peterson's interpretation of what he calls 'postmodern neo-marxist' thought (something heavily criticised by many) and how it relates to intersectionality and social hierarchy, but that's not ALL the issue, even when just talking about identity politics. The analysis he provides is layered, and starts with what I mentioned - something more related to actual postmodern thought and not the mash-up he makes with neo-marxism.

Surely this is too imprecise to be taken seriously?

My question is: what is religious/mystical truth? Isn't that just religious/mystical belief? And that's not the same as truth.

JP promotes a generally empirical worldview. He can't pivot from that to validating "religious/mystical truth". That's jarringly inconsistent.

This all comes down to how you define truth - an age old question. For me, I am toying with the idea that things can be empirically correct and they can be conceptually utilitarian - both forms of knowledge can be equally true but come from very different sources.

That's not the same as reinforcing "religious truth".

He talks about the Bible and other texts as enshrining certain kinds of behaviour that have been useful, and therefore, in his view, valid. It's descriptively true about how humans behave and benefit. That's fine, as a map for human behaviour and the ideas that have influenced it.

But that's not the same as "religious truth". Let's not conflate that.

I think there's a couple of ways of looking at this, and in one way you're right there - it wasn't the best example for me to provide. A better one would be where Peterson gives answers to whether he is a Christian (i.e. believes in the death and resurrection of Christ etc). There's a great post on Quora (I think) he wrote about this. Will try to find that, but if you search YouTube for I'm discussing God, there's several videos on it. But if we take 'religious truth' to just mean that which we find to be true and originating in religion (which basically just makes the true thing a concept that pre-dates the age of science), then many things can be considered religious truths. And many of those truths can be demonstrated with empirical scientific analysis. Which creates truth - the idea, or the evidence?

But that necessitates an empirical worldview. That's my point. You can't turn that switch on and off depending on the subject matter.

I disagree - I think you can. As they say when you are learning mechical tasks and trades, "Always use the correct tools correctly".

And that's where I find him unconvincing. He's a scientist. He has no business talking about what's "divine". That's bullshit.

Pointing out that he's a "student of Jung" makes no point. I get it, he talks about the power of archetypes. It's perfectly valid to do that without reinforcing "religious/mystic truth", which is a complete misnomer.

It seems to me (and of course I may be wrong) that the crux of our disagreements and perhaps your issues with these aspects of Peterson's theories is that we effectively aren't even speaking the same language. It appears that you focus on empiricism as the only source of truth, which I guess can be defined as a sort of scientism. Conversely, philosophy and other similar fields (theology and even elements of psychology) are simply not empirical in nature - they are the discussion of ideas. The language used has its own purpose and meaning within the text itself, where science does its best to make the process of discovery as un-biased as possible through avoidance of anything resembling language like that. When a person who can only accept science sees the phrase "divine individual", they baulk. But someone who studies philosophy or other similar fields understands that's just a heavily layered descriptive term.

Regarding Jung, I only brought that up as Jung has been criticized for being a mystic crazy person in his theoretical work. Given how influenced Peterson is by Jung's work, I am saying it's little wonder Peterson goes so deep into myth and religion as a source of truth (or information if you prefer that term lol).

 

[Sweet Jesus]

At work so I cant go through the video sorry, but it's within a minute or two of the timestamp.

You aren't wrong about how Peterson's interpretation of what he calls 'postmodern neo-marxist' thought (something heavily criticised by many) and how it relates to intersectionality and social hierarchy, but that's not ALL the issue, even when just talking about identity politics. The analysis he provides is layered, and starts with what I mentioned - something more related to actual postmodern thought and not the mash-up he makes with neo-marxism.

With all due respect, I'm not sure what your specific point is here?

This all comes down to how you define truth - an age old question. For me, I am toying with the idea that things can be empirically correct and they can be conceptually utilitarian - both forms of knowledge can be equally true but come from very different sources.

So if something is useful, it may as well be true?

I think there's a couple of ways of looking at this, and in one way you're right there - it wasn't the best example for me to provide. A better one would be where Peterson gives answers to whether he is a Christian (i.e. believes in the death and resurrection of Christ etc). There's a great post on Quora (I think) he wrote about this. Will try to find that, but if you search YouTube for I'm discussing God, there's several videos on it. But if we take 'religious truth' to just mean that which we find to be true and originating in religion (which basically just makes the true thing a concept that pre-dates the age of science), then many things can be considered religious truths. And many of those truths can be demonstrated with empirical scientific analysis. Which creates truth - the idea, or the evidence?

Well, if they can be demonstrated with empirical scientific evidence then they are no longer simply "religious truths".

Frankly, I reject that phrase completely. Religious truth is simply belief. If there is evidence, then show me the evidence and make the case based on that. The belief on its own is neither here nor there on the question of whether it's true or not.

It just strikes me that this is an attempt to expand the meaning of truth to the point it no longer provides a meaningful distinction. It's like when you hear people talk about religion and they say "it's true – for me". That's not the same as actually being true. It just means they believe it.

I mean, there might be Scientologists who believe in Xenu and thetans and their membership of Scientology might have helped them give up booze or drugs or whatever. I bet Tom Cruise thinks his belief in Scientology is useful. But surely that doesn't mean it's true.

In ancient times, people hid in caves because they were afraid of the sun. They believed it was God. But that wasn't true.

People believed the world was flat. But that wasn't true just because they believed it. Eventually, we gathered enough evidence to demonstrate the falsity of this belief.

In Tanzania, people hunt albino children and chop off their limbs to use in witchcraft. Is that voodoo bullshit true just because some people believe it?

You can query how we establish and verify what is true. But surely the standard is higher than "if people believe it, it may as well be true". Because there's all kinds of crazy, patently untrue s**t that qualifies as true if that's the standard. Surely the bar to determine truth is higher than mere belief.

It seems to me (and of course I may be wrong) that the crux of our disagreements and perhaps your issues with these aspects of Peterson's theories is that we effectively aren't even speaking the same language. It appears that you focus on empiricism as the only source of truth, which I guess can be defined as a sort of scientism. Conversely, philosophy and other similar fields (theology and even elements of psychology) are simply not empirical in nature - they are the discussion of ideas. The language used has its own purpose and meaning within the text itself, where science does its best to make the process of discovery as un-biased as possible through avoidance of anything resembling language like that. When a person who can only accept science sees the phrase "divine individual", they baulk. But someone who studies philosophy or other similar fields understands that's just a heavily layered descriptive term.

That's all well and good but I don't think that addresses my criticism of JP.

When someone asks him if he believes in God, why doesn't he start by considering the evidence? He posits an empirical worldview on pretty much every other issue. Why does he suspend it when considering questions of religion? Why does that become an evidence-free area of inquiry?

Instead, JP tells Dillahunty "it's not that easy to distinguish between what's useful and what's real". That strikes me as a dodge. The job of thinking people is to determine what's real beyond what's useful. The conflation is itself not useful.

Regarding Jung, I only brought that up as Jung has been criticized for being a mystic crazy person in his theoretical work. Given how influenced Peterson is by Jung's work, I am saying it's little wonder Peterson goes so deep into myth and religion as a source of truth (or information if you prefer that term lol).

And I don't object to him doing so, given their respective fields.

 

[AM]

Hmm!

 

[Frank Bunn]

Did you listen to his first appearance on Sam Harris's podcast? They spent an hour arguing about the meaning of truth because JP was saying that if an idea is useful (ie. religion) it may as well be true. That seems to be at odds with his position on other issues. He might be talking specifically about archetypes that enshrine certain kinds of useful human behaviour but religions make claims about themselves beyond that. I can't quite square those different aspects of his work.

It was a fairly tedious discussion but the meaning of truth is not a trivial distinction. Modern physics hypotheses rely on complex mathematical models. We should not assume that they represent some truth of reality. There is a schism in science between whether these models describe reality - or are merely 'stories' that are understandable by our senses and consciousness, and are useful.

Natural selection doesn't favour seeing reality as it is. We're shaped with tricks and hacks that keep us alive and also drive us to look for
internal consistency in our reasoning.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It was a fairly tedious discussion but the meaning of truth is not a trivial distinction.

Yeah, I don't disagree. I'm not saying I didn't find it interesting.

Modern physics hypotheses rely on complex mathematical models. We should not assume that they represent some truth of reality. There is a schism in science between whether these models describe reality - or are merely 'stories' that are understandable by our senses and consciousness, and are useful.

Natural selection doesn't favour seeing reality as it is. We're shaped with tricks and hacks that keep us alive and also drive us to look for
internal consistency in our reasoning.

I'm not sure that really addresses my criticism.

 

[ShanDog]

Hmm!

Makes sense.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Hmm!

Makes perfect sense to me considering the respective standard libidos.

Am I supposed to be outraged?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Won't somebody save me from the sirens call.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Yeah, I don't disagree. I'm not saying I didn't find it interesting.

I'm not sure that really addresses my criticism.

OK, maybe explain, because they got through a lot of ground in that discussion.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Hmm!

Which is the unbelievable part? That "gay men tend to be more promiscuous than average"; or that it's "probably because there's no women to bind them with regards to their sexual activity"?

I don't know if it's true, but it seems rather believable at least.

(I've bolded the parts that the Twitter post left out for some reason).

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

People pay to hear him talk about cultural marxists and all that?

 

[ShanDog]

People pay to hear him talk about cultural marxists and all that?

Imagine if people got paid based on how much they talk about him. Who'd be richer?

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Imagine if people got paid based on how much they talk about him. Who'd be richer?

You

 

[bombersfan4000]

Which is the unbelievable part? That "gay men tend to be more promiscuous than average"; or that it's "probably because there's no women to bind them with regards to their sexual activity"?

I don't know if it's true, but it seems rather believable at least.

(I've bolded the parts that the Twitter post left out for some reason).

lol offended by a 11 second clip

he is a clinical psychologist and a professor of psychology for starters!
if you look at it from a Male vs female point of view men are more promiscuous, or try to be more promiscuous than females

 

[bombersfan4000]

People pay to hear him talk about cultural marxists and all that?

Maybe you could turn up and take notes & challenge his opinions and theories!

Peterson is known as one of the more intelligent people in Canada and a college professor vs a radicalised basement dweller

Bahaha

 

[Bomberboyokay]

 

[Maddhew]

I am a big JBP fan, and think Shapiro has some interesting things to say from time to time.

I love that vid though, impersonations right on point..

 

[ShanDog]

Sweet Jesus does the below vid clarify anything? I think what he discusses here (the requirement for a sense of both objective and pragmatic truth) is very valid. Pragmatic truth might be the pre-scientific age equivalent of religious truths - things learned as a civilisation that were told as stories related to a God at the time.

 

[ShanDog]

FriendlyJordies is a pretty funny bloke. Does the balance between cringe and funny with his humour pretty well most of the time.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Sweet Jesus does the below vid clarify anything? I think what he discusses here (the requirement for a sense of both objective and pragmatic truth) is very valid. Pragmatic truth might be the pre-scientific age equivalent of religious truths - things learned as a civilisation that were told as stories related to a God at the time.

Sure, JP is positing "pragmatic truth" when it comes to moral questions such as "what should you do?" In other words, an understanding of "what works or will work" to make value judgements. Essentially he doesn't think objective truth is enough to answer ethical questions.

Sam Harris would disagree, obviously - he thinks you can reason your way to answering those questions, from a starting point that some outcomes are objectively better than others, followed by a reasoned (if infinitely complicated) discussion about what would be the optimal outcome and how we might best achieve that. And I'd be happy to listen or participate in that discussion either way. I think it's interesting. And although I lean towards Harris's position, in that we should at least attempt to make reasoned judgements about what course of action is, on balance, better and more ethical, I welcome JP's counterweight to that.

JP asks "how should we act in the world?" and insists objective truth doesn't tell us enough about that. Harris believes we can use reason as the foundation and scaffolding for our ethics, but JP disagrees and says we might also be "pragmatic" as well as "reasoned". That's fine. Happy to have that discussion.

But I'm not sure that really stacks up as a dichotomy for what we can show or understand to be "true". And I'm not sure JP's concept of "pragmatic truth" even qualifies as "truth". It's more like a combination of folk wisdom, moral intuition, common sense and results of trial and error.

Do we still need this "pragmatic truth" brought to bear on questions where we should in fact begin by assessing whether evidence exists for a proposition?

If we consider the world through the prism of "pragmatic truth", is it possible for everyone to be wrong about something? Not if there is no broader context for these truth claims beyond the lived experience of the people weighing the proposition. So if we go back to the era before we knew the world was round, what would "pragmatic truth" reveal about the shape of the planet? Everything was rolling along OK for the human race - people had survived to that point - so the theory of a flat earth may as well have been true? It had at that point be working OK for us in pure Darwinian terms. So would that have made the flat earth theory "pragmatically true" (or true enough) at the time? If so, what's that "pragmatic truth" really worth if it can't illuminate the s**t we don't know?

As Sam Harris says in that first podcast with JP: "You can't have a concept of truth that is subordinate to well-being." Truth can't be determined through the prism of "what works for us". Harris's objection is that JP wants to load "truth" with a whole series of other considerations - whether it's beneficial, whether it works for us, is it conducive to a moral outcome etc. And I tend to agree with Harris, although JP is exceptionally dexterous and dogged in his defence. And Sam Harris does get snippy, which doesn't redound to his benefit.

EDIT: I just listened to that podcast again in full. FMD what a rabbit hole.

 

[AM]

Makes sense.

I'm sure it does to you SD. To others it's someone way out of his depth. Each to his own I guess.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm sure it does to you SD. To others it's someone way out of his depth. Each to his own I guess.

I don't think that's the kind of hammer blow people are pretending it was.

JP could easily have explained that the civil rights made it illegal to discriminate against serving black people in a cafe or a restaurant or whatever - and that's fine. But in the case of the bakers, the government shouldn't compel them to actually create something for two gay customers. There is a distinction.

 

[ShanDog]

I'm sure it does to you SD. To others it's someone way out of his depth. Each to his own I guess.

Are you going to offer a counter-argument in this thread at all? Or just treat it like the Trump thread and spam insults and the next meme/clip?

 

[Procrastinator35]

JP looks like he could do with getting himself some sun.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Jeffries got it right when he said Peterson isn't ******* the alt right, just flirting with them. There's no other reason a smart person throws out some of the nonsense he does about cultural Marxists and all of that.

And the look on the college protester's face when she got airhorned was priceless.