Peterson, Harris, etc....

SteveJ said:
It's surely a fault to take philosophical/psychological/social positions based on works of fiction (Brave New World, for example); see Freud, Hamlet and the Oedipus Complex for details.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. See previous comments re psychoanalytical psychotherapy. It’s always seemed absolutely fecking bonkers to me. Although there are lot of objectively smart psychiatrists/psychotherapists out there who seem to think it has some merit. So I wouldn’t dismiss them as “stupid” for buying into that stuff, no matter how bizarre it seems to me.

In the same way I don’t think all priests/rabbis/immans are stupid just because of the odd beliefs that they hold (also based on a work of fiction)
 
Eboue said:
choosing your sexual partner is discrimination?
feminists dont criticize islam (:lol:) and feminists long for male domination (:lol: :lol:)
islam already rules the world?
he thinks pepe is some sort of deep message?

and so on. i mean, they are all blatantly absurd. we can discuss a couple in particular if youd like
Click to expand...

A lot of people have a "type" or "no gos" when it comes to partners.

The feminist + islam + male domination tweet sounds crazy, but then it's also labeled as a provocative question.

Equating "being dangerous to criticise" with some form of ruling isn't exactly a stupid assumption. The bigger problem I have with that tweet is whether or not criticising actually is dangerous.

Pepe being a meme used by all sides of the spectrum to satirize each other is an interesting observation. I have no idea how meaningful he thinks that observation is, because he doesn't elaborate, but I don't see what's stupid about it either.

It looks to me like you want to see stupid, so you see stupid in everything that isn't as simple as 1+1=2.

Those court documents that were posted about him are criticism I can get behind and they definitely will make me more suspicious of things I read of/from him.
 
do.ob said:
The feminist + islam + male domination tweet sounds crazy, but then it's also labeled as a provocative question.
Click to expand...
You’ve never noticed that folks who label things as “intriguing questions” are just trying to mask that they actually think that themselves?
 
@do.ob

For a small example, this is a feminist group that has been recording feminist progress and reaction in Muslim countries for at least 20 years. Their dossier from the mid-90s is in my parents' house.
http://www.wluml.org/
It is offensively absurd to say that a supposed lack of criticism of Islam is due to male domination
 
Carolina Red said:
You’ve never noticed that folks who label things as “intriguing questions” are just trying to mask that they actually think that themselves?
Click to expand...

Sometimes it has a deep meaning, sometimes it's just to provoke. This sounds so absurd that I'm leaning to categorizing it into the second category.


berbatrick said:
@do.ob

For a small example, this is a feminist group that has been recording feminist progress and reaction in Muslim countries for at least 20 years. Their dossier from the mid-90s is in my parents' house.
http://www.wluml.org/
It is offensively absurd to say that a supposed lack of criticism of Islam is due to male domination
Click to expand...

In the post you're refering to I myself said that it sounds crazy, no need to convince me.
 
do.ob said:
Sometimes it has a deep meaning, sometimes it's just to provoke. This sounds so absurd that I'm leaning to categorizing it into the second category.
Click to expand...
Based on his priors, I’m gonna categorize it as what I said. He thinks it, and he’s tacitly trying to see who else agrees with him by masking his statement as a question.

If blowback happens, he can then claim “but I was just asking a “provocative” question!?!?” and claim the role of victim.
 
Carolina Red said:
Based on his priors, I’m gonna categorize it as what I said. He thinks it, and he’s tacitly trying to see who else agrees with him by masking his statement as a question.

If blowback happens, he can then claim “but I was just asking a “provocative” question!?!?” and claim the role of victim.
Click to expand...

Basically his entire approach.
 
Eboue said:
Well obviously but why would that be framed as discrimination?
Click to expand...

Because you in- or exclude people based on categories?

Carolina Red said:
Based on his priors, I’m gonna categorize it as what I said. He thinks it, and he’s tacitly trying to see who else agrees with him by masking his statement as a question.

If blowback happens, he can then claim “but I was just asking a “provocative” question!?!?” and claim the role of victim.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right I haven't watched him closely enough to see these patterns, but I'll keep them in mind.

Silva said:
welcome to the world of jordan dragons are real and women are chaos peterson
Click to expand...

See, that's the problem I have with this type of criticism, someone uses a metaphor and you call him stupid because you are apparently either unable or unwilling to follow them.
 
do.ob said:
See, that's the problem I have with this type of criticism, someone uses a metaphor and you call him stupid because you are apparently either unable or unwilling to follow them.
Click to expand...
You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category.

It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious.
Click to expand...
metaphor
 
do.ob said:
He talks about witches and dragons as superordinate categories not as actually physically existing beings. Are you trying to prove my point?
Click to expand...
Pogue Mahone said:
Question. Do you honestly believe Jordan Peterson actually thinks that dragons (large, fire-breathing lizards) really exist? Because, if so, it’s kind of ironic that you’re the one calling him stupid.
Click to expand...
In fact, it really exists.
Click to expand...
 
do.ob said:
He talks about witches and dragons as superordinate categories not as actually physically existing beings. Are you trying to prove my point?
Click to expand...

I’ve already told him about Peterson’s fondness for archetypes, Jungian and otherwise. As is often the case in his contributions on here, he’s extremely selective with the points he does and does not listen to.

Or as he might describe someone else who did the same thing: stupid.
 
Well if Peterson's merely highlighting the occasional flaws in scientific categorisation, then he's late by several decades...
 
Pogue Mahone said:
*sigh*

Keep reading. The next one down on the list...
Click to expand...
i chose it on purpose because peterson is a charlatan and doesn't deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt, no one says dragons really exist if they have the ability to think more than 1 word ahead

jungian archetypes also aren't things that can be describing as really existing because it's fairytale bullshit and anyone who peddles it is a moron
 
Didn't Jung believe that, through 'active imagination', certain entities could be brought into existence (or, at least, our perception)?
 
I bet that there are philosophers out there who have devoted their lives to the question at what point something becomes real.
 
SteveJ said:
Didn't Jung believe that, through 'active imagination', certain entities could be brought into existence (or, at least, our perception)?
Click to expand...
He also wrote about alchemy, which peterson talks about in his lectures, in the 21 century when people who have gone to middle school know enough science to laugh at it.
 
Eboue said:
choosing your sexual partner is discrimination?
feminists dont criticize islam (:lol:) and feminists long for male domination (:lol: :lol:)
islam already rules the world?
he thinks pepe is some sort of deep message?

and so on. i mean, they are all blatantly absurd. we can discuss a couple in particular if youd like
Click to expand...

Choosing your partner is pretty much the ultimate form of discrimination so I think it's a fair thing to point out, if a little left field.

Western feminists don't criticise the sexism in Islamic culture generally. Obviously they don't actively support it, but when the Guardian class of feminists can bleat so loudly about fairly irrelevant pay gaps or totally innocuous things like manspreading you have to wonder why they don't bleat about i.e. Iranian women jailed for not wearing a hijab or, say, FGM.

Wrt Pepe, no idea what Peterson has actually said about Pepe, but memeology is quite an intriguing strand of ideas.
 
hobbers said:
Choosing your partner is pretty much the ultimate form of discrimination so I think it's a fair thing to point out, if a little left field.

Western feminists don't criticise the sexism in Islamic culture generally. Obviously they don't actively support it, but when the Guardian class of feminists can bleat so loudly about fairly irrelevant pay gaps or totally innocuous things like manspreading you have to wonder why they don't bleat about i.e. Iranian women jailed for not wearing a hijab or, say, FGM.

Wrt Pepe, no idea what Peterson has actually said about Pepe, but memeology is quite an intriguing strand of ideas.
Click to expand...
iran women being jailed: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-who-removed-headscarf-sentenced-to-two-years
fgm: https://www.theguardian.com/society/female-genital-mutilation
 
Silva said:
He also wrote about alchemy, which peterson talks about in his lectures, in the 21 century when people who have gone to middle school know enough science to laugh at it.
Click to expand...
It's just that I've a fondness for the idea of archetypes - it appears to link differing phenomena such as roadside ghosts (often an 'old hag' or beautiful young woman) to the observer-expectancy effect.
 
hobbers said:
Choosing your partner is pretty much the ultimate form of discrimination so I think it's a fair thing to point out, if a little left field.
Click to expand...

Would you describe preferring Pepsi to Coke discrimination? Or The Beatles to The Rolling Stones? It's an unusual way of framing it and in my opinion, it's a dog whistle to MRAs and incels.
 
do.ob said:
See, that's the problem I have with this type of criticism, someone uses a metaphor and you call him stupid because you are apparently either unable or unwilling to follow them.
Click to expand...

Here:
1. He has a shallow understanding of "Postmodern Neo-Marxism"/identity politics but often refers to it (it has taken over universities and corporations(!)). It is explained very well in this video. (11:00 onwards)

2. He got famous by misinterpreting a bill.

3. He's a psychologist who uses evol-psych VERY loosely: https://www.redcafe.net/threads/has...tually-gone-mad.404570/page-102#post-22035368

4. Highlights from his AMA:


Someone questioned him directly about the enforced monogamy:
Question, answer
IMO that word salad does not address the question - how is the "enforced mongamy" which would stop incel violence (his own words) different from living in a society which values and enforces monogamous marriage. This one goes for you too, @Pogue Mahone since apparently we are cherry-picking this quote.

The problem with these "metaphors" and Jungian archetypes is how literally he takes tham - he believes that any story that doesn't follow certain archetypes is ideological propaganda.


He also has a segment on the Pareto principle which I believe he gets totally wrong and I'm going to make a post about that too.
 
Jung is way too interesting to talk shit about. I wouldn't laugh at any of his theories. Even the wrong ones
 
caid said:
Jung is way too interesting to talk shit about. I wouldn't laugh at any of his theories. Even the wrong ones
Click to expand...

What if it helped you in your anti-Jordan crusade to convince people who already aren't Peterson fans that he's not all that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.