Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Seattle, Jan 27, 2018.
You supply the rest. What do you think of him?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
"Scientist" rather than philosopher (Canadian, University of Toronto). He's only had a recent apotheosis to stage / lecture demigod, and apparently is already of campus taboo status. ("What's So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?" -- Thomas Bartlett's political orientation???)
Maybe post videos of his actual talks or snippets (in correct context) of his papers, as an unadulterated means to dodge the filtering process of media minds and one's local thought overseers. Otherwise, what kind of original discourse could be expected to occur here, or would be possible in a world of distinctly polarized rhetoric, where the information and interpretation about an _X_ is going to be pre-packaged by the two broad ideological conformities beforehand, in terms of what one is supposed to determine and say about _X_?
Barring opposing evaluations being given no voice in rival economic and traditionalist outlets, inverted instances should be supplied -- of these facile illusions of impartiality via a mitigated mode of balanced representation: Another David Brooks op-ed in the iconic southpaw or NE newspaper. A piece by likewise right-leaning Conor Friedersdorf published in The Atlantic.
The Jordan Peterson Moment
Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying?
- - -
I'd never heard of him. I've never read anything he wrote. He doesn't seem to be a philosopher at all in the academic sense, rather a clinical psychologist turned cultural critic.
Just from his Wikipedia blurb, which casts him as a critic of political correctness, post-modernism and identity-politics, I think that I like him. (If he agrees with me, then he has to be brilliant.)
I think you meant to copy/paste this link:
That kind of lazy, ludicrous swill is what has trashed not only Brooks's reputation, but the NYT's - for giving it a platform.
At one point in his contractual 800 word emission, for example, Brooks writes this:
which those who have read Peterson say is clear evidence that Brooks has not read beyond the first few paragraphs of anything Peterson ever wrote. They say he's a family values guy, big on fatherhood and child nurturing as central to masculinity.
And notice that Brooks writes that about a paragraph after writing that Peterson takes the retreat and loss of Christianity and its social norms as marking and responsible for the rise of the gulags and Dachaus of the World Wars. Just like Nietzsche, he mourns the loss of Christian values? Ya, you betcha.
He's been characterized in the actual analyst and intellectual community - quite a while ago, iirc - as one of those frontmen for the wingnuttery best described as a stupid person's idea of a smart person.
Note that he shares at least one primary characteristic of that category: he's out of his field. His credentials, from which he derives authority and entry into the quoted and published realm, are in an unrelated area. That's not a damning circumstance, but it is a warning: none of his statistics or factual claims are vetted by his expertise, for starters.
And shares another: he's endorsed - taken seriously as an intellectual- by putzes like David Brooks.
So you've been warned.
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who blame others and those who think they can change their own lot in life.
And those who don't think they can change their lot in life but don't blame others,
and those who think they are the ones who changed their lot in life and blame others for not doing the same,
and those who - but the picture is clear, no?
Maybe six or seven kinds, in the blame others and credit oneself spectrum.
One things for sure: the ones who are real touchy about being blamed for what they did to change their own lot in life make lousy neighbors.
Yes, there's just a lot of ways people can justify blaming others.
I'd like to see an example of someone who doesn't think they can change their lot and doesn't blame anyone for it. Sounds like a mythical creature. Maybe mental illness, like Stockholm Syndrome?
Capable people are more likely to pity those who aren't, rather than blame them. Although knowing that anyone can change their own lot does mean that only they are to blame for their own. Not sure how someone who doesn't blame anyone for their own life could be expected to hold anyone other than the individual responsible for theirs. That sort of blame isn't used as an excuse, like external blame is.
Does anyone like to be blamed?
They're common in my neighborhood. They tend to be good neighbors.
Nobody said anything about capable people - that wasn't a category.
They do stuff like perceive and analyze real life circumstances and events.
Doesn't really provide anything by way of example. Anecdotal and a bit dependent on my estimation of your judgement (which I don't have much to go on).
Is there something controversial about people who believe they can change their lives also being capable of doing so?
To blame or not is the reaction to circumstances and events. What does simply perceiving these have to do with anything?
Matching the terms of discussion set by you.
Nope. There's nothing controversial about them being incapable, either. Capable people are not a category in this discussion - they are found in all our categories.
You asked how they did it. I provided one partial answer.
Sometimes. Other times it's a reaction to delusions and assumptions and projections.
Yeah, a bit. There are social forces working against, for instance, minorities.
Sure, if they're handicapped.
Oh, I see. You're interested in setting the terms of this discussion.
Seem to be talking at cross purposes.
I would think delusions, assumptions, and projections are part of the circumstances.
That completely keep them from changing their lot in life?
Who cares if it's complete or not? Belief is obviously not the only factor in success. Luck and social circumstances play a large part.
I'm going with yours.
It looked like a question - you put a question mark on it. So I answered it.
They aren't. They are part of the reaction, features of the one blaming.
Belief sure seems to be able to overcome any luck or social circumstances.
Wasn't aware I'd set any terms. I'm just talking.
I guess the inconsistent answer threw me.
I would assume any propensity to blame would be accompanied by some amount of bad thinking.
Those habits are part of the decision environment, no?
Based on what?
There are plenty of studies showing links between confidence and success, beliefs about intelligence and learning, etc..
I'm sure it's a positive attribute. But it isn't everything.
They are characteristics of the one blaming.
Also between confidence and ineptitude, far below average capability, and obliviousness to even complete incompetence.
Separate names with a comma.