Peterson, Harris, etc....

PedroMendez said:
I used the phrase "secular" in a wrong way. I have no idea if he is religious or not. What I was trying to say is the following:
Peterson is trying to give identity to people and he is talking about the meaning of life. These are domains, that have been strongly influenced by religion for a very long time. Instead of throwing all of that out of the window, he borrows many of these ideas/concepts/narratives (one might call them platitudes) from religion, mythology, literature and history. He argues that they have value/utility. I don't think one has to be an actual believer to do so.

In the end I don't think he is much different from other "self-help Guru", with the exception of his style of delivering the message. In this field of writing, style actually matters to some extend. It only "works" when it is actually able to inspire/convince one to some extend.

(all of that could be wrong; I have almost exclusively read stuff that other people have written about him)
Click to expand...

Yes, and all that would be fine except he really overextends himself outside his field.
Last page I posted his extension from psychology to history: psychoanalysis of Hitler. Hitler was irrational because he killed Jews instead of using them as slaves (and he seemed to be extrapolating to "thus Hitler didn't want to win the war"). Literally 5 seconds of google - or just general knowledge - will contradict that.
Next, his political views aren't clear but their overall outlook is clear - a defence of hierarchy and tradition (which IMO is the core of conservatism).
So, he extends from psycho to evolutionary bio to use lobsters to explain that hierarchies are biologically hard-wired. Except (like that article you posted in General CE chat) there is a ton of data about human history (and primates) which both supports and opposes his view. To take a very simplistic view of lobster similarity to humans and make judgements of human society based on that is badly stretching - IMO he's doing it to easily justify his politics.
Finally, he (like many modern conservatives) needs to explain the apparent downfall of western cuture, which he champions. So, he extends from psychology to critical theory and sociology, with seemingly zero knowledge there, butchers every concept he comes across (pomo, 'cultural Marxism'), and builds a narrative from that.
 
berbatrick said:
Yes, and all that would be fine except he really overextends himself outside his field.
Last page I posted his extension from psychology to history: psychoanalysis of Hitler. Hitler was irrational because he killed Jews instead of using them as slaves (and he seemed to be extrapolating to "thus Hitler didn't want to win the war"). Literally 5 seconds of google - or just general knowledge - will contradict that.
Next, his political views aren't clear but their overall outlook is clear - a defence of hierarchy and tradition (which IMO is the core of conservatism).
So, he extends from psycho to evolutionary bio to use lobsters to explain that hierarchies are biologically hard-wired. Except (like that article you posted in General CE chat) there is a ton of data about human history (and primates) which both supports and opposes his view. To take a very simplistic view of lobster similarity to humans and make judgements of human society based on that is badly stretching - IMO he's doing it to easily justify his politics.
Finally, he (like many modern conservatives) needs to explain the apparent downfall of western cuture, which he champions. So, he extends from psychology to critical theory and sociology, with seemingly zero knowledge there, butchers every concept he comes across (pomo, 'cultural Marxism'), and builds a narrative from that.
Click to expand...
He overextends himself inside his field and overextends the significance of his field. He seems to say a lot of stupid things. That said, I also wouldn't just reduce him to the most controversal things he said. Thats generally a good principle when it comes to evaluating anyone who publishes a lot of stuff. He doesn't hide that fact, that he is some form of conservative and you don't like conservatism (which is fine), so naturally you won't like him.
 
PedroMendez said:
I also wouldn't just reduce him to the most controversal things he said.
Click to expand...

Sure, he seems to be well-cited within his field. But his fame seems to be 50-50 self-help/overextending to make political points, not the Maps of Meaning stuff or his original research at Harvard.
 
berbatrick said:
Yes, and all that would be fine except he really overextends himself outside his field.
Last page I posted his extension from psychology to history: psychoanalysis of Hitler. Hitler was irrational because he killed Jews instead of using them as slaves (and he seemed to be extrapolating to "thus Hitler didn't want to win the war"). Literally 5 seconds of google - or just general knowledge - will contradict that.
Next, his political views aren't clear but their overall outlook is clear - a defence of hierarchy and tradition (which IMO is the core of conservatism).
So, he extends from psycho to evolutionary bio to use lobsters to explain that hierarchies are biologically hard-wired. Except (like that article you posted in General CE chat) there is a ton of data about human history (and primates) which both supports and opposes his view. To take a very simplistic view of lobster similarity to humans and make judgements of human society based on that is badly stretching - IMO he's doing it to easily justify his politics.
Finally, he (like many modern conservatives) needs to explain the apparent downfall of western cuture, which he champions. So, he extends from psychology to critical theory and sociology, with seemingly zero knowledge there, butchers every concept he comes across (pomo, 'cultural Marxism'), and builds a narrative from that.
Click to expand...
The easiest way understand Peterson is to watch the 2016 film The Lobster



Peterson ideal society is literally the dystopia portrayed in the first half of the film(To point where I think Peterson might just be stealing ideas from the film to build a career)
 
Shapiro just seems like a slimy cnut so I'm basically suspicious of everything he says. I can't help but interpret comments like the above as him slipping up and being honest for a change.
 
McUnited said:
Is it not a cruel twist of fate that the smartest people in the world are driving cabs, cutting hair, and frequenting football forums whilst the more stupid are lecturing at universities, writing best-selling books, and giving public talks worldwide?
Click to expand...
You seem to be implying people on football forums can't be highly educated and that selling books and giving talks are the de facto seals of approval. That's two poor assumptions in as many.
 
Maagge said:
You seem to be implying people on football forums can't be highly educated and that selling books and giving talks are the de facto seals of approval. That's two poor assumptions in as many.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that you're not highly educated, but your final sentence appears to be incomplete.
 
Eboue said:
[
Click to expand...

Considered posting that one in here. It's genuinely worse than what one of us would've written as a prediction of how unfunny his stand up probably would be.

I mean, even if we ignore how awkward his delivery is, cause it's obviously been a while for him, and write off the 'I forgot I'm good at this' as trying to reassure himself... he hasn't written any fecking jokes!
 
Last edited:
McUnited said:
Is it not a cruel twist of fate that the smartest people in the world are driving cabs, cutting hair, and frequenting football forums whilst the more stupid are lecturing at universities, writing best-selling books, and giving public talks worldwide?
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy #3: Argument from Authority.
 
PedroMendez said:
I don't think Petersons message is in any way deep.

Good and evil exists. People are fallible (sinners), but can improve their own lives and help to push the world towards the good, if they are willing to put in the work. That the most used story in the history of mankind. Thats why he sees so much value in literature from the bible to Dostojewski.
I guess it gives his followers a good feeling to be part of team "save the world" against team "evil neomarxists". He gives people on the right a home/identity, that don't feel represented by liberal mainstream culture. Religion loosing cultural significance opens up space for new actors to promote different conservative identities. Peterson is repackaging the message of religion into a secular from. The difference between a cultleader and a prophet (fig.) is marketing. I think Peterson is very eloquent, charismatic and confident. He is a very good communicator and that allows him to capture a sizable audience.
Click to expand...

So he is basically talking nonsense?
 
Rubin defended freeze peach with regard to the White House press correspondents dinner?

No? Oh okay then.

Almost like he’s right wing or something.
 
McUnited said:
I'm not suggesting that you're not highly educated, but your final sentence appears to be incomplete.
Click to expand...
How so? English isn't my first language so I thought it was grammatically correct. At least it seems to make sense logically, although grammar, of course, doesn't always adhere to logic.
 
Maagge said:
How so? English isn't my first language so I thought it was grammatically correct. At least it seems to make sense logically, although grammar, of course, doesn't always adhere to logic.
Click to expand...
Made sense to me.
 
Back in right-wing circlejerk-land...



Strong words from Captain 'Shit for Brains' Dave Rubin.

Of course he's objective and all...



So don't forget there's a pro-gun kid for all you lemons to get behind.

#thelastliberal
 
I thought this was a really good video:


It is a decent intro to the main trends of western philosophy (modernism, pomo) for people like me who have very little actual training in all that (from 9:45-19:30 and 23:30-26:30).
 
berbatrick said:
I thought this was a really good video:

It is a decent intro to the main trends of western philosophy (modernism, pomo) for people like me who have very little actual training in all that (from 9:45-19:30 and 23:30-26:30).
Click to expand...

Started watching Contra Points videos a while back and found them to be quite good. She's stated that she's moved further to the left since she started uploading videos, but I've found them to be quite honest compared to other content creators where there's a definite agenda in place.

Will give it a watch later.
 
JohnLocke said:
Started watching Contra Points videos a while back and found them to be quite good. She's stated that she's moved further to the left since she started uploading videos, but I've found them to be quite honest compared to other content creators where there's a definite agenda in place.

Will give it a watch later.
Click to expand...
Think she takes herself much more seriously than most (you know... apart from when she's getting it on with manikins with Jordan Peterson's face attached...) and as a result is much keener to engage with any potential criticism than others are. Which makes her very interesting and is also why I'm sure she'll drive herself insane before long.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Think she takes herself much more seriously than most (you know... apart from when she's getting it on with manikins with Jordan Peterson's face attached...) and as a result is much keener to engage with any potential criticism than others are. Which makes her very interesting and is also why I'm sure she'll drive herself insane before long.
Click to expand...

I seen that she'd been critiquing her previous videos and seems to do so in good humour, and to say where she's maybe been wrong or even just that her opinion has changed.

She used to be a Philosophy lecturer so a lot of her content has a solid base. Not saying you need to be an academic to make good videos, but it's good to know that she's not just waffling half baked ideas and has a really sound understanding of the larger picture.

Started watching videos by a German guy, his channel is called Three Arrows, he was on her related channels or vise-versa. He's not an academic, just a guy who's hobby is learning about history. Doesn't have many videos but I enjoyed watching them.
 
JohnLocke said:
I seen that she'd been critiquing her previous videos and seems to do so in good humour, and to say where she's maybe been wrong or even just that her opinion has changed.

She used to be a Philosophy lecturer so a lot of her content has a solid base. Not saying you need to be an academic to make good videos, but it's good to know that she's not just waffling half baked ideas and has a really sound understanding of the larger picture.

Started watching videos by a German guy, his channel is called Three Arrows, he was on her related channels or vise-versa. He's not an academic, just a guy who's hobby is learning about history. Doesn't have many videos but I enjoyed watching them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I like his stuff so far. Seems pretty thorough in his research.
 
I'm a big fan of Peterson. Agree with him wholeheartedly on the idea that young males are given very little public support in life, which goes hand in hand with the brewing narrative that white males come from a place of oppressiveness and have it significantly easier than all minorities. Although I do agree that his 'deep' stuff is actually very basic and not particularly deep at all. That I struggle to get into.

I like Shapiro, lacks charisma and is a serious point scorer but I enjoy watching his stuff.

I'd say the same about Steven Crowder who probably doesn't fall into the same category as these people but he has some very cool things on his channel. Particularly the 'Change my Mind' segment. Only issue is that he claims to push for an open, honest and intellectual conversation until he starts to feel intellectually inferior to someone, at which point he turns into one of the weak little SJW's that he constantly berates.

As for Sam Harris, well he kind of puts me to sleep. Maybe I'm just not at a high enough intellectual level for his craic, but I just really struggle to stay engaged.

Really like that video above, the ContraPoints one. Will definitely look more into that.
 
I'm more amused by someone admitting they watch Steven Crowder. Another failed comedian like Rubin and about as funny as cancer diagnosis.
 
Minimalist said:
I'm more amused by someone admitting they watch Steven Crowder. Another failed comedian like Rubin and about as funny as cancer diagnosis.
Click to expand...
I think he's extremely funny. Along with the other 1.9 million subs!

Comedy is subjective y'know?

As for the Shapiro thing, horrific statement! Was it an isolated tweet or was it part of a chain? In any case, I hope he's wised up since he wrote that 8 years ago!
 
GDaly95 said:
I think he's extremely funny. Along with the other 1.9 million subs!

Comedy is subjective y'know?

As for the Shapiro thing, horrific statement! Was it an isolated tweet or was it part of a chain? In any case, I hope he's wised up since he wrote that 8 years ago!
Click to expand...

And that's your issue. Living in some YouTube bubble.
 
Raoul said:
This is pretty much my view. He seems to be pretty knowledgable about the subject matter he talks about, which can at times be very interesting and at others a bit tedious. The main problem as I see it isn't Peterson, its the people who have latched on to him as some sort of guru of all things anti-liberal orthodoxy/victimhood culture/post-modernism etc. Those are all very interesting arguments from his end, but the fact that so many members of the right have suddenly gravitated towards him is bound to make him more controversial than problem solving.
Click to expand...
Good post. I have more issues with his followers than him. One may ask why they support him I guess. And what that says about him.

Slightly related, I hate how so many people online will support an intelligent person (like Peterson) and then act as though his intelligence is their intelligence. Agreeing with or having the same political stance as a smart person doesn't make you smart
 
You must log in or register to reply here.