Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[Sweet Jesus]

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.

That's not a real argument, is it?

It's an argument from ignorance i.e. why else would he say that if he doesn't want to cultivate a far-right following?

Come on. Be fair-minded. There are plenty of ways to disagree with JP without confecting links to the alt-right.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

That's not a real argument, is it?

It's an argument from ignorance i.e. why else would he say that if he doesn't want to cultivate a far-right following?

Come on. Be fair-minded. There are plenty of ways to disagree with JP without confecting links to the alt-right.

He's not alt right. But he throws out some red meat that they like which he'd know is bullshit.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

He's not alt right. But he throws out some read meat that they like which he'd know is bullshit.

That's not a serious criticism.

 

[ShanDog]

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

Very rare I laugh out loud watching those sort of clips - but that one got me.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

That's not a serious criticism.

He's not an objective, data based intellectual all of the time.

At times he's a theologian. At other times he's a political provocateur. It's this role where he throws out the red meat. He's made a lot of money off these people.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

He's not an objective, data based intellectual all of the time.

I agree. I find his comments on religion to be unconvincing.

At times he's a theologian. At other times he's a political provocateur. It's this role where he throws out the red meat. He's made a lot of money off these people.

I disagree that he's a provocateur - whatever that means - or that he is deliberately cultivating an alt-right audience.

I think you have to critique the substance of what he's saying. You can't just say "well he's making money so he must be full of s**t".

Don't be lazy.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I agree. I find his comments on religion to be unconvincing.

I disagree that he's a provocateur - whatever that means - or that he is deliberately cultivating an alt-right audience.

I think you have to critique the substance of what he's saying. You can't just say "well he's making money so he must be full of s**t".

Don't be lazy.

He's not always a provocateur all the time, or most of the time- he is some times. He often makes regressive statements that he knows will get eaten up the portion of his fan base who identify as alt right.

His arguments about cultural marxists, and political correctness and universities stifling speech can't be verified scientifically- they are political rants.

Do they make up the core of what he is about? No, and Ive never claimed it has.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

He's not always a provocateur all the time, or most of the time- he is some times. He often makes regressive statements that he knows will get eaten up the portion of his fan base who identify as alt right.

Again, that's not a serious critique of the substance of what he's saying.

Let's assume that he is cultivating an alt-right audience. So what if he is? That doesn't make the case that what he's saying is wrong or erroneous or badly reasoned.

You have to work harder than that. You can't just shout "alt-right" and that's job done.

His arguments about cultural marxists, and political correctness and universities stifling speech can't be verified scientifically- they are political rants.

They're not presented as scientific arguments. If you don't like him, critique the substance.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Let's assume that he is cultivating an alt-right audience. So what if he is?

On many issues he's not coming from a place of objectivity. Which is fine. But some of his arguments about some issues are nonsensical and simply a reflection of his culturally conservative values. Which is fine. The issue is his advocated demand a scientific rebuttal to some of his views which are not based on data.

They're not presented as scientific arguments. If you don't like him, critique the substance.

His ideas on the cultural marxist conspiracy, political correctness and free speech at universities have been rebutted throughout this thread.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

On many issues he's not coming from a place of objectivity. Which is fine. But some of his arguments about some issues are nonsensical and simply a reflection of his culturally conservative values. Which is fine. The issue is his advocated demand a scientific rebuttal to some of his views which are not based on data.

Critique the substance.

I don't think he's asking for a "scientific rebuttal" to his talks about Biblical archetypes. That would be silly.

But when someone like Cathy Newman goes after him about the gender pay gap, she should probably have a handle on the data. She's derelict not to.

 

[ShanDog]

Time for a light-hearted interlude.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Time for a light-hearted interlude.

This shocked me. I can't recall a worse performance by an interviewer.



I was ambivalent about JP until I saw this. I'm still totally unconvinced by a lot of s**t he says. But I'm now hyper-aware of people lying about his positions. And it's baffling to me. You can go after him on the arguments he's actually making. There's plenty there to critique. Why do you have to pretend he's saying something vastly more eccentric and backward than what he's actually saying? He's already target-rich, as they say in Top Gun. There's no need for a giant rolling snowball of strawman arguments. Please forgive the mixed metaphor.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I have to admit it, the subtle troll factor behind those moronic PETERSON OBLITERATES/DESTROYS/SMASHES...........FEMINIST/SJW/LEFTARD....youtube right wing hashups, have the ability to make otherwise intelligent people completely lose their s**t.

I mean, Peterson doesn't make them, support them, or even agree with many of them...............but that is completely beside the point.

 

[Maddhew]

I am conflicted in that I like JBP and agree with most of what he says, but as the alt-right adopt him as their darling (through little fault of his own) it does turn me into a closet fan.

 

[Contra Mundum]

I am conflicted in that I like JBP and agree with most of what he says, but as the alt-right adopt him as their darling (through little fault of his own) it does turn me into a closet fan.

The self help part of it is unexceptional even banal but his demagogic desires mean he plays footsee with the most appalling Alt right arseholes


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Procrastinator35]

Time for a light-hearted interlude.

"You've got a mental illness & you're evidence for a serious flaw in our education system"

Big Footy sig right there.

 

[Frank Bunn]

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?

The flat earth model still works today for the large part. If I'm navigating across the country using a map the flat earth model is sufficient. The guy who designed my GPS needed to use the round earth model. But we can't assume the round earth model represents some ultimate truth of reality. Some physicists say that irregularities in the cosmic microwave background support a holographic explanation of the universe i.e. one where all the information, which makes up our 3D ‘reality’ is contained in a 2D surface on its boundaries. But what they really mean is that holographic universe model doesn't break when they apply some selected data.

As I said above, modern physics hypotheses rely on complex mathematical models. Poincaré worked out that mathematical systems can be internally consistent but conflict with each other. Which one of Euclidian, Lobachevsky or Riemann geometry is 'true'? Hawking applies this to a view of what reality in different universes might be like but I think it can be applied when thinking just about our own universe.

We seem to be at a critical point in the history of science, in which we must alter our conception of goals and of what makes a physical theory acceptable. It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle. The parameters are free to take on many values and the laws to take on any form that leads to a self-consistent mathematical theory, and they do take on different values and different forms in different universes.​

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.

Do Harris and Peterson broadly agree that truth is based on pragmatism? - but disagree on saying that something might be 'true' because is it conducive to a moral or biological outcome? How far are these positions apart? Humans can't escape our evolutionary designed curious, exploratory nature - and we continue to find things about the universe that are useful to us. We also can't escape our evolutionary designed moral nature. Both these things determine what is useful to investigate and evaluate. We're finding out things that are 'useful' in terms of our evolved nature.

It could be that their impasse on this matter is because the metaphysics they are both using does not allow a coherent solution. Peterson briefly mentions it. The only serious attempt I have seen to propose a monistic metaphysics is by Robert Pirsig.

What is the relationship between scientific truth from mathematical models that work and our general concept of what is true? As Peterson pointed out, people were getting along just fine without an empirical conception of the world, and animals still manage it. So they're obviously operating on some level of representation of reality that doesn't require articulated empirical investigation.

 

[ShanDog]

"You've got a mental illness & you're evidence for a serious flaw in our education system"

Big Footy sig right there.

My favourite was "Suicidal thoughts...that's a good one. You should be so arrogant you dismiss it"

 

[ShanDog]

The self help part of it is unexceptional even banal

I'd say the reach he's had makes it exceptional. If that's the most he achieves, it's still quite an achievement and worth acknowledgement. Theres something strange about the requirement to be revelationary before being held in high regard.

 

[Frank Bunn]

The self help part of it is unexceptional even banal

Compared to whom?

 

[Contra Mundum]

Compared to whom?

Clean up your room and sit up straight are about as banal as you can get!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Frank Bunn]

Clean up your room and sit up straight are about as banal as you can get!

You are avoiding the question. Who is someone who advises on self help for young people with low self esteem and suicidal thoughts that you would preference?

 

[ShanDog]

Clean up your room and sit up straight are about as banal as you can get!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

You're a smart person - reducing what JBP says to the meme slogans in order to dismiss is lazy.

 

[Procrastinator35]

You are avoiding the question. Who is someone who advises on self help for young people with low self esteem and suicidal thoughts that you would preference?

Shambhala Buddhist meditation.

 

[ShanDog]

Shamballa Buddhist meditation.

Collective Minds.