Okay but I'm not targeting pogue specifically. I didn't even quote him. His post just made me think of this. I dont think Pogue loves Ben Shapiro for example but plenty treat him as a hero.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
Okay but I'm not targeting pogue specifically. I didn't even quote him. His post just made me think of this. I dont think Pogue loves Ben Shapiro for example but plenty treat him as a hero.
How is his claim to be an expert in psychology dubious? He has over 10k hours of clinical experience and has been a professor at Harvard and University of Toronto.
And I don't think he has claimed to be an expert in other fields. Anyway, the idea that one can't give an opinion on fields in which one isn't 'an expert' is a strange one.
If I had known you were just throwing a point out there that was unrelated to the previous one, despite seeming to be in response to it, I wouldnt have called you on it.
Apology accepted
The book seems to be offering a pretty standard rationale (going by the wiki link). Wouldn't it be much more interesting to actually have different concepts fighting poverty laid out and debated instead of the more insular approach this author chose?
In a way I agree with you. A few pages back I was asking for help with a friend who’s got very caught up in this whole intellectual dark web stuff. And yeah, it’s weird the pedestal he puts these guys on (not Shapiro, thankfully, he’s not a total idiot) I just wanted to fight a bit of fire with fire.
You don't have to have a PhD in every topic you write about. You can have one (like Peterson's in clinical Psychology) and use it as a foundation to write about contemporary psychology related topics and branch out a bit. Chomsky's training is in linguistics and he has made a career out of writing and speaking about politics.
This is the problem. People aren’t listening to genuine experts (that’s the first issue) and when they do, the gobble up everything and seemingly change their entire worldview to match.
It’s fecking bizarre. YouTube has a lot to answer for.
Chomsky proves he’s capable of adding to the discussion despite his credentials coming from elsewhere. His output on war and terrorism isn’t from no where either (his activism that began decades ago). His output is such high quality (mostly in essay form) it’s not even under question. Similar to Hitchens.
Peterson isn’t anywhere near those two. Neither is Harris. Certainly not that twerp Shapiro.
That's all subjective and I wasn't suggesting he was on the same level - just driving home the point that anyone can write books by doing their research irrespective of what their formal training was in. I don't care for Chomsky's political writings but am very interested in his linguistics work.
This argument is entirely subjective.
Yeah I don't disagree with that at all.
Which part? 99% of this thread is subjective...
I dont either. But you made the point better than I did when you said some people gobble up everything a person said and then change their entire worldview.
Your first argument was about people not listening to genuine experts, which is the case when you listen to Peterson talk about philosophy for example. But then you defended Chomsky's commentary on politics, I'd assume because you agree with him. That's why I pointed it out, your first argument was objective and your second was subjective.
Said it before - this stuff is just the Kardashians for edgelords and "I'm 12 and this is deep" type men who aren't capable of thinking critically... but it's far more dangerous.
Everything on Youtube (in this area) is extreme and exaggerated beyond belief (not just right-wing populism but damn near everything). If you're gobbling this stuff, no wonder we've ended up with fecking Trump in the White House, a living breathing troll character.
Im sure it was ever thus, though. As @Minimalist says, YouTube probably has a lot to answer for, but only in terms of broadening people's horizons and giving them exposure to more ideas. Even without it, the kind of person who would change their entire worldview because they buy into what someone says on YouTube was probably always highly suggestible, and always likely to be a follower, just of someone drawn from a smaller group.
Or, alternatively, the person inspiring the change is so convincing, so articulate and compelling, they deserve to have their ideas listened to, and to change people's minds.
You are accused of not slavishly listening to Noam Chomsky's inaudible old man whispers on youtube, and found guilty. Your sentence is SJW cringe compilation #29
I have no issue with Peterson teaching his classes. I have a big issue with him being seen as some sort of life guru for young men. That has nothing to do with his expertise on philosophy. Primarily I think he's overrated as a communicator. Hitchens and Chomsky are/were both excellent at that part of it (you don't have to agree with their points but they laid it out perfectly for you). I've even seen Milo (who is hardly going to his enemy) of all people saying "I don't know what fcuk Peterson is talking about half the time."
Have you ever seen the documentary they did with Chomsky (Requiem for the American Dream) that's on Netflix and a few other places? The one they have to blast dramatic music continually throughout so you don't fall asleep. Works well to be fair.
Bizarrely enough, I've read that this actually sort of contributes to his appeal. Often he'll present incredibly simple, obvious ideas in a much more complicated and needlessly wordy format, and so will appear as if he's saying something profound when he's actually not saying anything at all. I've not read any of his works in full but if you go through a list of his key quotes, most of them are entire paragraphs dedicated to something which could be communicated in a sentence. Generally something obvious.
Peterson is a bit of a mixed bag. I thought he came across quite well in his C4N interview with Cathy Newman, but that was more because she just made such a complete hash of that. She can be really good, I usually quite like her, but something went wrong that day, she was not on her game at all, and it ended up making him look really reasonable.
But at other times he comes across as a pompous twat who is basically trying to confuse people into thinking he's smarter than he actually is.
But at other times he comes across as a pompous twat who is basically trying to confuse people into thinking he's smarter than he actually is.
I certainly think that's why Russell Brand got on well with him.
Agreed. There are parts of his routine that are interesting and others that vacillate from boring to pretentious.
So do I. The fanboy culture is incredibly annoying. On the other hand, in today's YouTube monetization world, a good number of content providers are doing very well financially by simply invoking the names of Peterson and Harris. In this case, making it look like there's some sort of rivalry between them.
Have you ever seen the documentary they did with Chomsky (Requiem for the American Dream) that's on Netflix and a few other places? The one they have to blast dramatic music continually throughout so you don't fall asleep. Works well to be fair.
Yup, don't remember the music though. I've never finished Manufacturing Consent (though I've probably heard enough from other videos to know his argument) so maybe the music is important...
He's got much quieter as he grew older.
The last few ones I literally had to invert my ear into the speaker.Yeah, I'd say an intelligent man who's not anywhere near as intelligent as he thinks he is sums him up. Although maybe he's aware of his own limitations and it's other people who can be blamed for how he's seen.
Yup, don't remember the music though. I've never finished Manufacturing Consent (though I've probably heard enough from other videos to know his argument) so maybe the music is important...
He's got much quieter as he grew older.
About 20s into the trailer should remind you. Literally goes on the entire documentary.
I said before, the people who go against him often balls it up so much, and that strengthens his brand. He is now raking in serious cash by talking about how misrepresented he is, rather than down to what he IS saying.
I dont think your summary quite does justice to what I perceive to be his intentional over-complication of things to bamboozle people though - presumably, as I said, to make him look smarter.
On the other hand, Einstein said the definition of intelligence is the ability to take the complex and make it simple. By that measure, he isnt intelligent at all. He is not stupid, he is anti-intelligent.
In the credential department both Petetson and Harris have respect PhD and are clearly superior to Hitchens 'third class' undergraduate degree. Additionally Hitchens argued well outside his speciality (literary classics) in just as ignorant manner as any of the current thinkers.
Actually even in Hitchens specialty of literature he was a pretentious judgemental asshole (he would insult the entire genre of sci fi). Let alone on religion, a subject he clearly harbored bias and hate and was not an expert. He was a lowest common denominator malicious troll who added nothing to discussions.
His completely ignorant wanking over Bush's Iraq war was one of the most ignorant displays of public "intellectualism" i have ever seen. He continually made provably false arguments, nudged the discussion into the gutter with his constant barage of insults and prejudice. He did far more damage to public discussion the last 13 years of his life.
He wasnt half as informed as he pretended to be and he was probably the most insecure person I have heard speak.
He was also the worst kind of drunk. Some people get funny or more friendly when drunk. Hitchens just got more arrogant, malicious and mean.
I find that regarding Hitchens as a polemicist is the best way to remember him. He had an incredibly quick mind and a gift for speaking (more so than writing imo). His writing always came across as a stream of consciousness rendition of how he talked, often attempting to forge new linguistic territory.
1. How are Peterson and Harris more qualified to talk on their respective subjects (that they make money off) than Hitchens was? Why should Hitchens not have spoken of the war/terrorism? Pretty sure he spent more time in the middle east than Sam Harris ever did.
2. Hitchens was opinionated - no shit Sherlock. (I don't think anyone cares for his opinions on Lord Voldemort either but he still made some as I recall).
3. Hitchens was a master at his craft (writing and arguing/debating), brilliantly well-read and clinical making his points (unlike Peterson or Harris in my opinion). As many people said, he could have switched sides and convinced people just as easily to be religious. That's what people admire or give him credit for. We could talk all day about what he is right about and what he got wrong - that's not the point at all.
He was creative in crafting his personal insults and ad hominem I'll give him credit for that
I always enjoy watching / listening to really intelligent and articulate people I DONT agree with, even more, in some ways, that ones I do. The other Hitchens - Peter Hitchens - is a great case in point. I disagree with him about a lot, but I find him a fascinating person to listen to, and Im sure YouTube algorithms think I love the man because they are always throwing his stuff my way. I find it helps clarify my thoughts about something listening to someone with his talents making the counterargument.
1. I already answered that. They have PhD in their fields. Hitchens has a third class undergrad degree. In the credential department they are objectively more qualified.
2. Nothing to do with being opinionated it was his crass and low class way of expressing it as insults and acting superior. All he did was increase the misunderstanding and hate between athiests and religious people and westerners and Muslims. He was more interested in Trump stylr self publicity by doing things like calling Mother Theresa a whore constantly. He wasted his platform on his "anti-theism" instead of contributing in a positive fashion to society. Hitchens overly aggro style contributed to the evolution of the alt righy by legitimizing hate - like its ol
Kay to just call people you dont like whores.
And thats not even getting into the damage he did with his unequivocal support for the Iraq war.
3. All arbitrary and subjective opinion.
I doubt he convinced anyone of changing their mind on religion , he just attracted the angry atheist crowd
Sam Harris has a PhD in neuroscience. Peterson a PhD in clinical psychology.
Have a think about how objectively more qualified they are for how they make their money (currently I mean).
Has this been verified? I personally do not like using Twitter as a source of truth.
I'm sorry, you were talking of intelligent people but then mentioned Peter Hitchens. Did you mix two posts up?