I just think people would be less inclined to roll their eyes at him if he didn't make it so easy. I remember in that CBC interview him saying that he'd screw up sometime. He sometimes just seems determined to do so. Maybe tweets like that are just stirring the pot for attention, I don't know, but it's pretty hard to take him seriously when he does that sort of thing.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I just think people would be less inclined to roll their eyes at him if he didn't make it so easy. I remember in that CBC interview him saying that he'd screw up sometime. He sometimes just seems determined to do so. Maybe tweets like that are just stirring the pot for attention, I don't know, but it's pretty hard to take him seriously when he does that sort of thing.
Well, when you see him speak in person, or write something that is longer than 80 characters, he comes across as articulate and genuine. Maybe people shouldn't let a couple tweets determine a person's character or intellect.
I can pull up some stupid tweets from even the most respected modern philosophers / political personalities / whatever. Twitter and social media encourages it.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ashasx For This Useful Post:
Well, when you see him speak in person, or write something that is longer than 80 characters, he comes across as articulate and genuine. Maybe people shouldn't let a couple tweets determine a person's character or intellect.
I can pull up some stupid tweets from even the most respected modern philosophers / political personalities / whatever. Twitter and social media encourages it.
Yes, who can forget Aristotle's "bitches be crazy" tweet circa 350 B.C.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
After reading this thread I ended up getting his audio book.
Definitely an interesting listen. For me, the best parts were the bits where he stuck to the science or emphasized personal accountability. I also found some of his positive messages about manhood and masculinity resonated with me, particularly at a time when it seems increasingly like pooping on cis gendered heterosexual males seems to be a requirement to getting a left wing or liberal membership card.
He lost me for long stretches though when he relied heavily on biblical teachings or stories to support his positions, or just started proselytizing away from scientific grounding or his own areas of expertise.
On the whole though, there are a few valuable messages in there that made it interesting and worthwhile IMO.
I find myself agreeing with Jordan Peterson sometimes, but also not when he goes into his conservative views regarding marriage and his religious lectures. I disagree with his melding of biblical lessons and epistemology into his academic arguments which appears based on his assertion that western civilization was somehow raised alongside these principles and that it's been a loss to our society to forget these.
I can respect the message he is trying to get across in terms of how young men need to be taught the value of responsibility and that our society has lost some of that.
I watched this video where he talks about his Albertan upbringing and how he met his wife when they were kids and it helped humanize him for me.
I just think people would be less inclined to roll their eyes at him if he didn't make it so easy. I remember in that CBC interview him saying that he'd screw up sometime. He sometimes just seems determined to do so. Maybe tweets like that are just stirring the pot for attention, I don't know, but it's pretty hard to take him seriously when he does that sort of thing.
Anyone who post as much commentary as Peterson does, as candidly as Peterson does, on a great arange of topics as Peterson does, will leave some embarrassing comments for anyone looking.
The guy isn't a politician. Most of us aren't. I'd wager that none of us who post frequently on hot-button issues on this forum could survive a run for public office.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Of course that's true and even Peterson has acknowledged as much. Which makes it even more strange that even though he is aware of the issue he still is somewhat reckless, at times, in his communication. That tweet, along with another recent tweet, are practically begging for criticism. It makes me wonder if this may be a strategy to occasionally say very controversial things for attention and the subsequent donations that roll in.
Of course that's true and even Peterson has acknowledged as much. Which makes it even more strange that even though he is aware of the issue he still is somewhat reckless, at times, in his communication. That tweet, along with another recent tweet, are practically begging for criticism. It makes me wonder if this may be a strategy to occasionally say very controversial things for attention and the subsequent donations that roll in.
The tweet is from 2016. People are still sifting through all of Peterson's published words to signal that he is a racist, white supremacist bigot.
That tweet has none of those implications, as far as I can see, even if you tried to twist it it would be hard to categorize it as racist or bigoted in any way. It's just crazy.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I find myself agreeing with Jordan Peterson sometimes, but also not when he goes into his conservative views regarding marriage and his religious lectures. I disagree with his melding of biblical lessons and epistemology into his academic arguments which appears based on his assertion that western civilization was somehow raised alongside these principles and that it's been a loss to our society to forget these.
I can respect the message he is trying to get across in terms of how young men need to be taught the value of responsibility and that our society has lost some of that.
I watched this video where he talks about his Albertan upbringing and how he met his wife when they were kids and it helped humanize him for me.
you mean people aren't killing him for saying hot property?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
That tweet has none of those implications, as far as I can see, even if you tried to twist it it would be hard to categorize it as racist or bigoted in any way. It's just crazy.
It's a tweet. I find about a third of tweets baffling.
But if I had to guess, and knowing Peterson believes enduring social norms serve some useful social function or they wouldn't have endured, I think he means:
The abandonment of monogamy incurs a cost to society, and state intervention ("tyranny") may be necessary to deter the problems caused by the lack of responsibility (failed relationships, unwanted pregnancies, etc.).
That's just a guess. The fact he uses the term "tyranny" suggests he's torn about the issue. He sees the collapse of the social norm of monogamy as a very bad thing for society, but also dislikes the idea of the state interfering in the matter.
But this is why parsing comments on social media is kinda pointless. While we don't see politicians say that kind of stuff because it can get them in trouble, a lot of people still treat social media like an earnest but inconsequential debate over a jug of beer in a bar. Was Peterson wise to treat twitter like that? Maybe not. But that tweet was from two years ago, before he became unexpectedly famous at the age of 55.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 02-28-2018 at 05:27 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
It's a tweet. I find about a third of tweets baffling.
But if I had to guess, and knowing Peterson believes enduring social norms serve some useful social function or they wouldn't have endured, I think he means:
Is monogamy an "enduring social norm"? Certainly not in all societies. Maybe not even in ours (depending on which studies regarding the current and historic prevalence of extramarital sex one believes [they vary widely]).
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Is monogamy an "enduring social norm"? Certainly not in all societies.
No, but in most. It's very odd because it's a wholly anti-Darwinistic concept, yet it seems to emerge completely independently across cultures and time periods. I feel like someone has explained the evolutionary basis for it to me in the past but I can't remember what that explanation was.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
No, but in most. It's very odd because it's a wholly anti-Darwinistic concept, yet it seems to emerge completely independently across cultures and time periods. I feel like someone has explained the evolutionary basis for it to me in the past but I can't remember what that explanation was.
Isn't Monogomy a construct to ensure passing on of genes and later wealth and status to those genes. Effectively it was to ensure that women did not have another mans child and that the women and children weren't killed and eaten.
Darwin supports more of a Harem concept but outside of the very rich / strong this has been hard to maintain. And in general monogomy is much more associated with a women's virtue than a man's.
There are examples of monogamist relationships in animals. Effectively if a child has a better survival rate with 2 parents and the cost of maintaining a 2nd wife is high monogamy should be the Darwinistice preference.
No, but in most. It's very odd because it's a wholly anti-Darwinistic concept, yet it seems to emerge completely independently across cultures and time periods. I feel like someone has explained the evolutionary basis for it to me in the past but I can't remember what that explanation was.
Large swaths of young men without wives = civil unrest and war?
Isn't Monogomy a construct to ensure passing on of genes and later wealth and status to those genes. Effectively it was to ensure that women did not have another mans child and that the women and children weren't killed and eaten.
Pretty much. Devoting your energy to ensuring the survival of another man's child is not a good way to pass on your genes. Monogamy does the trick nicely. It also helps ensure you're around to protect your own offspring from infanticide. And having confidence that the children you're supporting are your own becomes especially importance once you have settled populations where inheritance of land and property is vital to status and survival.
Which isn't to say monogamy was always strictly observed in practice - of course it wasn't. But it has been the promoted norm in most of the world for the last 10,000 years.
I think Peterson goes farther than that, though, and feels casual sex outside of an enduring pair bond is psychologically unhealthy for most people, turning what should be a deep and serious mutual bond into a superficial act of selfish pleasure akin to gluttony, drunkenness, and other vices. So he's definitely not a liberal on those matters. But he's hardly alone in that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 02-28-2018 at 10:08 PM.
Funny/scathing review of 12 Rules for Life by Richard Poplak. Quality writer, but the snark will likely offend some Peterson fanboys (so, don’t read if you’re the type).
I didn’t agree with all of the points, but I laughed, and agreed with a good handful.
Pretty much the usual takedown of Peterson - vitriolic ridicule and condemnation not of what Peterson has actually said, but what the author is sure he really believes. When is a leftist foe of Peterson going to actually step up and debate the guy? Challenge his assertions with reason and empiricism? All we get are these smirking diatribes that are devoid of substantive criticism.
Or has genuine intellectual debate fallen out of fashion altogether in these febrile times?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Pretty much the usual takedown of Peterson - vitriolic ridicule and condemnation not of what Peterson has actually said, but what the author is sure he really believes. When is a leftist foe of Peterson going to actually step up and debate the guy? Challenge his assertions with reason and empiricism? All we get are these smirking diatribes that are devoid of substantive criticism.
Or has genuine intellectual debate fallen out of fashion altogether in these febrile times?
Why should they? It's not like Peterson himself is providing much more than his own form of rhetoric. His lectures aren't exactly packed with statistics and empirical evidence.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
