Quote:yohami Wrote:
1. He’s a male celebrity so he’s being pinged by groupies all the time, so he knows how to. Success, dominance, visibility on a field, plus his constant take downs of other men and taking the lead, makes him the women in that intellectual(ish) tribe will screen and bang first.
2. The men who are trying to “do the right thing” and “white knight” even guys like Peterson dictating rules for the tribe – are still in a screening process, trying to display and showcase value to make themselves attractive to women.
The betas / men who are “acting cowardly” – it’s not that they fear the rejection of the tribe by acting out, they fear the rejection of women. They are following morals to make themselves more attractive to women. Peterson says “women likes bad men” but then proceeds to white knight and shame men because deep down his surface level knowledge he still thinks the white knight is what passes the test, being a protector of women, being the good guy. When he says “women want bad men but they want civilized men” he’s selling his own brand to women “Im dangerous, and civilized, and I will even take your side and defend you, and shame all these other men”.
Men’s instinct is to tell women why they should have sex with them. It’s all a sale. Peterson is selling.
If you stop selling (you’d have to go full omega for that, or zen) and you look at what women in general are going for you’ll find a different story. Often “the fit man” and “civilized” are against each other in the screening spectrum, find out what women tend to prefer.
The Jordan Peterson thread
^
Trolls signing up to poison the well against Peterson. He's really hit the big time!
He must just terrify them down to their very (1% remaining) souls.
Trolls signing up to poison the well against Peterson. He's really hit the big time!
He must just terrify them down to their very (1% remaining) souls.
It is a true observation that if you listen to him a lot, Peterson has a number of points and examples that he uses all the time. But that's no reason to be dismissive. New stuff comes up all the time. He's also an experienced teacher. Repetition is an important part of pedagogy, especially in lectures. The bible lectures, for example, cover many similar themes and include a lot of those stock examples, but using the bible stories means each lecture still has a different focus. That marriage quote that Heartiste posted on his blog the other day... that's not one of his repeat talking points. The bible lectures are full of insights like that.
Some other common well-poisoning and rhetorical attacks I've seen that tend to have a nugget of truth but are invalid in the bigger picture:
Peterson is just saying stuff that is obvious - But not so charismatically or eloquently. It's probably not as obvious as people think, especially in the media. A lot of the so-called "obvious" stuff that Peterson talks about are things that too many people take for granted-- which is why they've allowed the radical left to run amok destroying our culture and heritage.
Peterson's not saying anything that other smart professors don't also say - yeah well, fine, feel free to link up some better content (they never do). Peterson has a very entertaining style of speaking and has been on the faculties of two of the most prestigious Psychology Departments in the world (Harvard and UofT).
Peterson isn't a real Christian - boring semantic nitpicking. To the extent he identifies as Christian, he doesn't make an issue of it.
You'd be better off just reading Jung and Neitzche - Those guys are pretty damn hard to read and they got various things wrong. Perhaps most importantly, one of Peterson's main value-adds is a solid grounding in scientific thinking and evolutionary psychology in particular.
Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism - Kind of a no true scotsman fallacy and this criticism doesn't usually demonstrate comprehension of Peterson's point against postmodernism.
So the bible stories are really metaphors? How is that groundbreaking? - peterson repeatedly points out that "metaphor" is an insufficiently deep meaning to accurately describe what he means. His assertion is;
1. Reality is beyond our ability to comprehend consciously. The most complicated thing that is both most relevant to our lives while we know almost nothing about it is the nature of human consciousness.
2. Humans need workable models of reality in order to be able to act. These models must be at a low enough resolution to comprehend but a high enough resolution to be useful.
3. Humans have evolved capacity for abstract thinking, which sets humans apart from other mammals.
4. These abstract models of reality are real in the sense that numbers are real. They are tools that humans use to both understand and interact with the world.
5. They are conveyed in the form of religious narratives, archetypes, and super-ordinate principals.
Many of these old biblical stories, whether done consciously or not, have conceptual models of the human experience that are very useful. Many of these conceptual models that involved what we now consider to be "physical reality" are obsolete. Although still actually as useful as they need to be, when you think about it. Does your daily life really change much, knowing that the sun does not actually "move" through the sky during the day? However, since we still don't understand human consciousness, many of these old "metaphors" are still highly useful.
How is the bible different from any other myth? - Peterson is fairly liberal with his use of different mythology around the world. The idea that he's dismissive of non-Christian mythology seems baseless to me. At the very least he's discussed Mesopotamian myths and Taoism. He talks about Pinocchio and Harry Potter. In fact he even answered a question about Tolkein in one of the lectures. He said something like: yeah, what JRR Tolkein was doing was creating a modern mythology, and he did a pretty good job of it. But what you don't get with Lord of the Rings is the whole host of great related works from the long history of Christianity (like Milton's Paradise Lost and Dante's Divine Comedy.) Finally, he also makes the point that the biblical stories are just flat-out great stories, because a lot of very useful ideas can be extracted from them. He seems to think the reason for this is that they are stories that represent hundreds of years of prehistoric humans observing each other and telling stories about what they observed. For example, in Genesis God says to Eve: your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. That's an incredibly true statement about human sexual dynamics packed into such a small sentence.
And speaking of Q&A, Peterson is great at answering questions. A few times during that Harvard talk, I thought he kind of got a bit ranty and keyed up and missed the point of one or two questions. But for the most part, he has an amazing ability to listen to a complex question, comprehend it, and develop an honest and usually insightful answer right on the spot. A lot of smart people attend his lectures and he's gotten some really interesting philosophical questions.
Finally, there are various people who take issue with his criticism of Postmodernism, Marxism, and Neo-Marxism but I haven't really seen anything beyond knee-jerk flailing yet.
Some other common well-poisoning and rhetorical attacks I've seen that tend to have a nugget of truth but are invalid in the bigger picture:
Peterson is just saying stuff that is obvious - But not so charismatically or eloquently. It's probably not as obvious as people think, especially in the media. A lot of the so-called "obvious" stuff that Peterson talks about are things that too many people take for granted-- which is why they've allowed the radical left to run amok destroying our culture and heritage.
Peterson's not saying anything that other smart professors don't also say - yeah well, fine, feel free to link up some better content (they never do). Peterson has a very entertaining style of speaking and has been on the faculties of two of the most prestigious Psychology Departments in the world (Harvard and UofT).
Peterson isn't a real Christian - boring semantic nitpicking. To the extent he identifies as Christian, he doesn't make an issue of it.
You'd be better off just reading Jung and Neitzche - Those guys are pretty damn hard to read and they got various things wrong. Perhaps most importantly, one of Peterson's main value-adds is a solid grounding in scientific thinking and evolutionary psychology in particular.
Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism - Kind of a no true scotsman fallacy and this criticism doesn't usually demonstrate comprehension of Peterson's point against postmodernism.
So the bible stories are really metaphors? How is that groundbreaking? - peterson repeatedly points out that "metaphor" is an insufficiently deep meaning to accurately describe what he means. His assertion is;
1. Reality is beyond our ability to comprehend consciously. The most complicated thing that is both most relevant to our lives while we know almost nothing about it is the nature of human consciousness.
2. Humans need workable models of reality in order to be able to act. These models must be at a low enough resolution to comprehend but a high enough resolution to be useful.
3. Humans have evolved capacity for abstract thinking, which sets humans apart from other mammals.
4. These abstract models of reality are real in the sense that numbers are real. They are tools that humans use to both understand and interact with the world.
5. They are conveyed in the form of religious narratives, archetypes, and super-ordinate principals.
Many of these old biblical stories, whether done consciously or not, have conceptual models of the human experience that are very useful. Many of these conceptual models that involved what we now consider to be "physical reality" are obsolete. Although still actually as useful as they need to be, when you think about it. Does your daily life really change much, knowing that the sun does not actually "move" through the sky during the day? However, since we still don't understand human consciousness, many of these old "metaphors" are still highly useful.
How is the bible different from any other myth? - Peterson is fairly liberal with his use of different mythology around the world. The idea that he's dismissive of non-Christian mythology seems baseless to me. At the very least he's discussed Mesopotamian myths and Taoism. He talks about Pinocchio and Harry Potter. In fact he even answered a question about Tolkein in one of the lectures. He said something like: yeah, what JRR Tolkein was doing was creating a modern mythology, and he did a pretty good job of it. But what you don't get with Lord of the Rings is the whole host of great related works from the long history of Christianity (like Milton's Paradise Lost and Dante's Divine Comedy.) Finally, he also makes the point that the biblical stories are just flat-out great stories, because a lot of very useful ideas can be extracted from them. He seems to think the reason for this is that they are stories that represent hundreds of years of prehistoric humans observing each other and telling stories about what they observed. For example, in Genesis God says to Eve: your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. That's an incredibly true statement about human sexual dynamics packed into such a small sentence.
And speaking of Q&A, Peterson is great at answering questions. A few times during that Harvard talk, I thought he kind of got a bit ranty and keyed up and missed the point of one or two questions. But for the most part, he has an amazing ability to listen to a complex question, comprehend it, and develop an honest and usually insightful answer right on the spot. A lot of smart people attend his lectures and he's gotten some really interesting philosophical questions.
Finally, there are various people who take issue with his criticism of Postmodernism, Marxism, and Neo-Marxism but I haven't really seen anything beyond knee-jerk flailing yet.
I would like to see Peterson get together with Roger Scruton, but I fear they would agree on too much.
Also, random aside since I have not read him yet but only have heard of him, how similar is the work of Mircea Eliade to what Peterson is saying (myths, history of religion, etc)? Anyone know?
Also, random aside since I have not read him yet but only have heard of him, how similar is the work of Mircea Eliade to what Peterson is saying (myths, history of religion, etc)? Anyone know?
Quote: (07-12-2017 10:43 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:
I would like to see Peterson get together with Roger Scruton, but I fear they would agree on too much.
Also, random aside since I have not read him yet but only have heard of him, how similar is the work of Mircea Eliade to what Peterson is saying (myths, history of religion, etc)? Anyone know?
Eliade >>> Peterson
Peterson cited Eliade in his last lecture fwiw.
Quote: (07-13-2017 07:06 AM)JohnSmith Wrote:
Quote: (07-12-2017 10:12 PM)Blaster Wrote:
2. Humans need workable models of reality in order to be able to act. These models must be at a low enough resolution to comprehend but a high enough resolution to be useful.
JBP needs that - not abstract humans he projects onto
Which of his workable models of reality aren't workable? And why aren't they?
Quote: (07-13-2017 10:37 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:
Quote: (07-13-2017 07:06 AM)JohnSmith Wrote:
Quote: (07-12-2017 10:12 PM)Blaster Wrote:
2. Humans need workable models of reality in order to be able to act. These models must be at a low enough resolution to comprehend but a high enough resolution to be useful.
JBP needs that - not abstract humans he projects onto
Which of his workable models of reality aren't workable? And why aren't they?
"A map is not a territory"
I was more referring to a fact that it's most intellectually-centered people - like JBP, who naturally overvalue logos - who require "models of reality" past adolescence to live well. Emotionally/instinctually centered people - do not
Quote: (07-13-2017 10:44 AM)JohnSmith Wrote:
Quote: (07-13-2017 10:37 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:
Quote: (07-13-2017 07:06 AM)JohnSmith Wrote:
Quote: (07-12-2017 10:12 PM)Blaster Wrote:
2. Humans need workable models of reality in order to be able to act. These models must be at a low enough resolution to comprehend but a high enough resolution to be useful.
JBP needs that - not abstract humans he projects onto
Which of his workable models of reality aren't workable? And why aren't they?
"A map is not a territory"
I was more referring to a fact that it's most intellectually-centered people - like JBP, who naturally overvalue logos - who require "models of reality" past adolescence to live well. Emotionally/instinctually centered people - do not
Emotionally/instinctually centered people do not what?
If you mean, "don't overvalue logos", that's full of holes.
What's the exact value of LOGOS? And if you don't know the exact value of LOGOS, then how can you accuse anyone of over-valuing it?
Quote: (07-13-2017 10:44 AM)JohnSmith Wrote:
Quote: (07-13-2017 10:37 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:
Quote: (07-13-2017 07:06 AM)JohnSmith Wrote:
Quote: (07-12-2017 10:12 PM)Blaster Wrote:
2. Humans need workable models of reality in order to be able to act. These models must be at a low enough resolution to comprehend but a high enough resolution to be useful.
JBP needs that - not abstract humans he projects onto
Which of his workable models of reality aren't workable? And why aren't they?
"A map is not a territory"
I was more referring to a fact that it's most intellectually-centered people - like JBP, who naturally overvalue logos - who require "models of reality" past adolescence to live well. Emotionally/instinctually centered people - do not
Everyone uses uses models to understand the world. Most of the time you are not conscious of these conceptual models, they're internalized. In fact, a common source of disagreement is when two people have conflicting conceptual models for what seems like the same thing. They aren't conscious that they're even using a model at all, and so they can't understand why someone else doesn't see something the same way they do.
Here's an example I heard a long time ago, back before the internet, when libraries were common and relevant. A man walks into a library and picks a stack of 20 books and brings them to the librarian to check out. The librarian has a fit and says "you can't do that!" The man says "why the hell not?" They argue back and forth and get nowhere, because what's happened is that they have a functionally different concept of what a library is. The man views the library as a dispensary-- an institution that makes books available for people to read. The librarian views the library as a repository, a place to keep and protect books for all time, that lends books to people as a courtesy. The librarian is offended by the idea that a man should just walk out of the repository with a huge pile of books, while the man is offended that the librarian won't let him do that. The difference is subtle, but enough to cause a serious disagreement. The people involved don't realize what's happening, they just see a stubborn asshole, or a greedy entitled one.
Again this goes back to the point JBP has repeated many times when discussin postmodernism, which he calls the frame problem (an AI reference). That is, that humans have a very functional view of the world. We see objects in the world mostly in terms of their function. A pit, for example, is something you can fall into and probably hurt yourself or die. We also tend to relate new things to things that we already know. And modern humans, at least anyone literate enough to be posting on this forum, is exceptionally good at abstraction of functional definitions. For example, even if you've never seen a wine glass before, you can immediately and with a high degree of success properly classify it as "something you can hold in your hand and drink from" based on your abstract internal conceptualization of a cup. You do not have to know the wine glass's exact dimensions or know precisely how it is made. You don't need a peer-reviewed article proving that you can successfully fill it with water and use it to drink.
One idea Peterson argues is that God can (in some contexts) be thought of as an abstract conceptual model of the future. Without a functional model of the future, we would not know how to interact with it. Obviously, modern humans have a far more sophisticated understanding of the future and how one might bargain with it. But understanding how they thought about it can both help us understand how we think about it, and allows us to better understand the meaning and value of the old stories.
Quote: (07-13-2017 11:52 AM)Blaster Wrote:
Everyone uses uses models to understand the world.
Speak for yourself, Blaster Blaster. I do not need a bloody model to *understand* the world - if your perceptions is not model free, it's already been skewed - but I will use models to share my understanding with people like you and JBP for that's you primary way of learning of the world
See http://www.michaelteachings.com/centers_dave.html for intro to how different centering affects primary modes of perception/understanding
![[Image: 70CLFDT.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/70CLFDT.gif)
Oh boy! The Postmodernists are upon us!
![[Image: Rescue+your+father+from+the+underworld+b...226594.jpg]](http://memestatic.fjcdn.com/pictures/Rescue+your+father+from+the+underworld+bucko_30c7c2_6226594.jpg)
"Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it. It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin. Real love involves real hatred: whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the sellers from temples has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth."
- Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
Maybe just a shill for that new age religion site he just linked.
Quote:Quote:
Every center has seven parts of centers, which is a sort of doorway into the other centers. The parts of centers have the same names as the centers themselves. So there is an intellectual center, and an intellectual part of every center. Also, your part of center is like your secondary centering.
Quote: (07-13-2017 12:02 PM)JohnSmith Wrote:
I do not need a bloody model to *understand* the world
Why are you getting so hostile John? Members here are just trying to help you understand Dr. Peterson's value.
And you're wrong about your not needing models. Everyone needs them. Robert Pirsig proved this in his classic book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" (ZAMM).
When you set about repairing a motorcycle, you have to use your sensory awareness to see the bike in her current state so you can diagnose problems. In this sense you are seeing the bike as she is in reality. However, in order to perform repairs and maintenance effectively, you have to be able to use your imagination to see the bike in a "perfect" state, a state that must be a model in your mind. In this sense you are seeing the bike as she could be in what philosopher Immanuel Kant would describe as her a priori state. The word "model" is simply a synonym for Kant's "a priori" concept.
Your contention that you never require models is an empiricist approach to thinking which is more in line with the philosophy of David Hume than that of Kant and being a realist certainly has its merits (I have been accused of being one a few times myself), but Pirsig does a good job of proving the value and indeed the necessity of a priori thinking in ZAMM. We need both the left and the right hemispheres of our brains to figure out the world John.
It's easy for an engineer to feel morally superior to and sneer at a mild-mannered psycho-therapist like Dr. Peterson, but the engineer may one day find that he is all thumbs when his teenage daughter turns out to be suicidal for reasons he cannot fathom. The engineer might say to himself, "What's her bloody problem? Why is she so depressed? I give her everything she NEEDS don't I?" And then he might discover his faith in God (because there are no atheists in foxholes) and then proceed to get down on his knees and thank God when a quality psycho-therapist like Dr. Peterson saves his daughter's life. Because what the quality psycho-therapist did for the engineer's daughter mystifies him and seems to him to be proof of the very exisitence of God.
Just a little a priori thought experiment for you there John.
"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president."
- Ann Coulter
Team ∞D Chess
Quote: (07-13-2017 12:27 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:
Quote: (07-13-2017 12:02 PM)JohnSmith Wrote:
I do not need a bloody model to *understand* the world
Why are you getting so hostile John? Members here are just trying to help you understand Dr. Peterson's value.
I'm not hostile in the slightest. "Bloody" is what JBP uses all the time, so it was me paying homage to his fiery presentation. I thought it would have been obvious to anybody who listened to him as much as I did. I gave him money too - around 30 bucks
Quote: (07-13-2017 12:30 PM)JohnSmith Wrote:
Quote: (07-13-2017 12:27 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:
Quote: (07-13-2017 12:02 PM)JohnSmith Wrote:
I do not need a bloody model to *understand* the world
Why are you getting so hostile John? Members here are just trying to help you understand Dr. Peterson's value.
I'm not hostile in the slightest. "Bloody" is what JBP uses all the time, so it was me paying homage to his fiery presentation. I thought it would have been obvious to anybody who listened to him as much as I did. I gave him money too - around 30 bucks
Oh hello A.S How long do you think you'll go before getting banned this time around?
"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president."
- Ann Coulter
Team ∞D Chess
^^^
How does the post you quoted link me to A.S?
How does the post you quoted link me to A.S?
Quote: (07-13-2017 12:46 PM)JohnSmith Wrote:
Quote: (07-13-2017 12:37 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:
Oh hello A.S How long do you think you'll go before getting banned this time around?
I'm a Ram - not a Raven
Sure you are John. Sure you are.
"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president."
- Ann Coulter
Team ∞D Chess
It's funny, even Peterson hasn't delved into the male female sexual dynamic completely, and I hope he doesn't.
"...this is particularly true among young men, and I haven't quite puzzled that out yet..."
Even in his Rogan interviews, he doesn't go into why generally women are liberal and men are conservative.
I hope he doesn't. I don't believe he doesn't know. He knows. But it's not a topic he cares about discussing, because **we all sorta know** that women have a tougher time with big picture, with math and statistics (Ann Coulter being one of those nerdy exceptions). That women want to lead and men follow.
I don't mean he doesn't touch the edges of this topic, but I don't think he cares about getting into Game, which is where such a discussion often leads.
Probably the biggest difference women have....Women have a very difficult time understanding generalities and while maintaining individualism and individual judgment. They have a tough time understanding that while we can discuss differences between groups (races, genders, careers, nationality, etc) and these differences are very real, the differences within groups are always greater. That's my experience, having had discussions with intelligent non-feminist women.
Anyway, that's the type of thing Peterson wouldn't really go into detail about, because it doesn't help his overall cause. And I hope he steers clear of M/F dynamics and Game.
"...this is particularly true among young men, and I haven't quite puzzled that out yet..."
Even in his Rogan interviews, he doesn't go into why generally women are liberal and men are conservative.
I hope he doesn't. I don't believe he doesn't know. He knows. But it's not a topic he cares about discussing, because **we all sorta know** that women have a tougher time with big picture, with math and statistics (Ann Coulter being one of those nerdy exceptions). That women want to lead and men follow.
I don't mean he doesn't touch the edges of this topic, but I don't think he cares about getting into Game, which is where such a discussion often leads.
Probably the biggest difference women have....Women have a very difficult time understanding generalities and while maintaining individualism and individual judgment. They have a tough time understanding that while we can discuss differences between groups (races, genders, careers, nationality, etc) and these differences are very real, the differences within groups are always greater. That's my experience, having had discussions with intelligent non-feminist women.
Anyway, that's the type of thing Peterson wouldn't really go into detail about, because it doesn't help his overall cause. And I hope he steers clear of M/F dynamics and Game.
“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.”
Quote: (07-13-2017 12:27 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:
However, in order to perform repairs and maintenance effectively, you have to be able to use your imagination to see the bike in a "perfect" state, a state that must be a model in your mind.
You don't need to know where the exit is to find one when stuck in a labyrinth
Do you know anything about Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods? Local moves can lead to global mixing if done right
Pioneers of the West had no maps of the land in front of them and still succeeded
Youngsters - and intellectually centered people of all ages - need maps though
and even I need maps to transfer to knowledge to them, for they wouldn't get it otherwise
So, at the danger of repeating myself, maps have their use, but not everyone *needs* them to operate in the world - especially not those of the explicit kind
Quote: (07-12-2017 10:43 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:
Also, random aside since I have not read him yet but only have heard of him, how similar is the work of Mircea Eliade to what Peterson is saying (myths, history of religion, etc)? Anyone know?
I have Eliade's "Myths, Dreams, and Mysteries"
Recommended
The fact that a couple of people have shown up recently trying to dismiss Peterson with trollish tactics is actually pretty good evidence he is a threat to someone out there.
“The greatest burden a child must bear is the unlived life of its parents.”
Carl Jung
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)