Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Again, I'm going to take someone's words at face value unless they volunteer a different interpretation or are quite clearly speaking metaphors. It's not up to the reader to choose the writer's words for him. I asked for people to provide me with examples where Peterson elaborated and no one did.
|
Sure, I understood you, I just think you have a predisposition to one interpretation, which you refer to as "face value". Because of your prior view of the guy, that interpretation is the worst one available. As you've seen, some other people read it differently. Your request that someone conclusively demonstrate the wrongness of your interpretation is reminiscent of
David Pizarro's explanation of motivated reasoning:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pizarro
On the other hand, when we are exposed to information that contradicts a cherished belief, we tend to pay more attention, scrutinize the source of information, and process the information carefully and deeply. Unsurprisingly, this allows us to find flaws in the information, dismiss it, and maintain our (potentially erroneous) beliefs. The psychologist Tom Gilovich captures this process elegantly, describing our minds as being guided by two different questions, depending on whether the information is consistent or inconsistent with our beliefs: “Can I believe this?” or “Must I believe this?”
|
Anyway, that universal human tendency is what I meant. I didn't mean to dwell on it or keep talking about it, and I don't think it's very important to the discussion as a whole. I'm perfectly happy to let it go.