Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum - Jordan Peterson-Rational Wiki

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Looks like Jordan Peterson has finally made his way into Rational Wiki. Home sweet home.

Wow! Pretty nutty, eh?

Quote:The story of Adam and Eve represents the fruit as producing a psychological transformation. So the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is an abstraction across trees, and it's trying to say: "Here's something that's common across trees, it's a fruit that's common across trees. The fruit that's common across trees is something that you might call food, fair enough. But here's something that's even more cool; food that's stable across the entire domain of food, isn't food, it's information. We use the same bloody circuits in our brain to forage for information that animals use to forage for information. Why is that? Because we figured out knowing where the food is, is more important than having the food. ... That's why we're information foragers.—Jordan Peterson

"Although Peterson frequently makes morally questionable claims and engages in pseudoscience, his statements are notoriously incoherent, vague, jargon-laden, and ambiguous, which allows him to handwave criticism as mere misrepresentations of his babbling gibberish."

Yep. Big Grin

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

(Jun 19, 2019 03:14 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like Jordan Peterson has finally made his way into Rational Wiki. Home sweet home.

Wow! Pretty nutty, eh?

Quote:The story of Adam and Eve represents the fruit as producing a psychological transformation. So the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is an abstraction across trees, and it's trying to say: "Here's something that's common across trees, it's a fruit that's common across trees. The fruit that's common across trees is something that you might call food, fair enough. But here's something that's even more cool; food that's stable across the entire domain of food, isn't food, it's information. We use the same bloody circuits in our brain to forage for information that animals use to forage for information. Why is that? Because we figured out knowing where the food is, is more important than having the food. ... That's why we're information foragers.—Jordan Peterson

Heh. Looking at that, I was thinking it must surely be from his Maps of Meaning, a book that sounds as if Peterson was trying to emulate Joseph Campbell. But I guess it's from Biblical Series IV: Adam and Eve: Self-Consciousness, Evil, and Death instead? Regardless, I'll take the footnote's word for it, as I'm certainly not sampling the latter two and a half hour video just to verify such.

Despite the online conversation piece as he's been in recent years, I'm not sure I've ever actually listened/watched him before. Period. (Or have forgotten?) So you can imagine how surprised I am, in the drinking song bit below, that (even voice-wise) he's kind of like the Red Green of Canadian psychologists. Maybe one of his lectures could recruit the metaphor of duct tape for fixing up a personal problem or relationship. (Red Green's campfire song "Drinkin' with the Boys" - short ad at start)

Jordan B Peterson's Drinking Song

So an OP that's just ad hominem, without any real refute of anything quoted, and a reply that rides that bandwagon, while admitting to be speaking out of ignorance. Rolleyes

(Jun 19, 2019 08:57 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Despite the online conversation piece as he's been in recent years, I'm not sure I've ever actually listened/watched him before. Period. (Or have forgotten?)

It would be entertaining and funny, if he didn’t have so many followers. I'm pretty sure that’s how Syne-ism came about.

Here be dragons…

I think you said that Allen Ginsberg was a big advocate of free speech, as well, didn’t you? Wink

As a side note, you know his poem, Howl? I wonder if he was ever a guest at the Bohemian Grove. Hey, maybe they’ll invite Jordan to share his little dragon stories. Big Grin

Being too intellectually lazy to follow or contemplate something just means that you're finding humor in your own ignorance. Well, they do say it is bliss, so at least you have that. :wink:

And what, is free speech now something to deride? Dodgy

(Jun 20, 2019 04:20 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]And what, is free speech now something to deride?

Peterson, himself, is deriding free speech with his own defamation suits, deary. It’s funny, though. It’s like he’s his own personal ironic jester. Well, in my humble opinion, that is. Big Grin

I think that this law might apply to defamation claims, though, and it may be a call for dismissal, because Peterson publicly admitted to filing the lawsuit in order to retrain their speech.

Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
Purposes…

"I’m hoping that the combination of the two lawsuits will be enough to convince carless university professors and administrators blinded by their own ideology to be much more circumspect in their actions and their words. We’ll see how that plays out."—Jordan Peterson [source]

Come on, Syne. You have to admit that this one is funny. Big Grin

Excerpt:

Muhammad Khan: In terms of the care you have with your words, I noticed that was one of your twelve rules, was that in light of your post fame or pre-frame?

Jordan Peterson: No, it was a consequence of something I discovered when I wrote my first book, which was called “Maps of Meaning”. Um…which was that there’s an old doctrine, and it’s been formalized in I suppose it’s most articulate form in Christianity, but it’s a very-very old idea that words create the world, and I believe that, that’s a metaphorical statement in some sense because what it means in its most fundamental manor isn’t something that we can fully fathom, but I believe that it’s true, and so that if you want to create a world that isn’t hellish then you use words that are as clear and concise and honest as you can possibly manage because it is through your speech that the possibilities of the world transform themselves into the realities of the world. So...and when I understood that, I understood that mostly as the consequence of totalitarianism, and what went so dreadfully wrong in Nazi Germany and mostly in the Soviet Union, and although I did some investigation in Mau China and other places like that I understood that a huge causal—a huge causal role was played by injudicious and malevolent use of language. So, I thought, well, I don’t want to contribute to that at all in even in the smallest amount, and so, I decided that I was going to be very careful with what I said and wrote. So, I’ve been practicing that for thirty years, diligently.

(Jun 20, 2019 03:24 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]. . . I think you said that Allen Ginsberg was a big advocate of free speech, as well, didn’t you?

As a side note, you know his poem, Howl? I wonder if he was ever a guest at the Bohemian Grove. Hey, maybe they’ll invite Jordan to share his little dragon stories.

Yeah, for the sake of an interlude of balance, I guess Ginsberg is as good an example as any to use. He was certainly adored by '60s counterculture because he was one of the three key founders of the Beat Generation movement. ("The Howl" is a gospel classic in that respect.) And the eccentric little fart was cherished by the New Left long afterwards.

So on the opposite pole of promoting anti-traditional values, we could say that Ginsberg probably treated a variety things as "fact" that were also more art, subjective rhetoric, ideology, pseudoscience, and PoMo-like speak (Naropa University). Also, Ginsberg being a supporter and member of NAMBLA and a fan of various communist leaders, and so-forth, would correspond to whatever is "caveman scary" about Peterson on the traditional side.

But later Hollywood culture loved Ginsberg in spite of that, because any crank stuff on his part might have facilitated and been friendly with its views (to oversimplify and be quick here). Thus there is a double standard of (still living) Peterson being more vehemently discredited due to his proposed treating of "art, subjective rhetoric, ideology, pseudoscience, and PoMo-like speak" as fact.

Aside from maybe a couple of other brief spots, even RationalWiki largely seems to only feature Ginsberg as a passing mention in a "fun section" section along with other "embarrassing liberals". Whereas Peterson gets serious rather than light-hearted attention.

NAMBLA itself is discussed in an almost tempered tone compared to other entries, with the reference to moral panic suggesting a kind of "Oh, let's not carried away with regarding these fun-loving guys back in their heyday as if they a were major contributor to pedophilia and its spread".

So there. We got our "interlude of balance" out of the way, that might have been suggested by a reader in the "mail-in" comments to the editor column of the newspaper. Wink

(Jun 20, 2019 08:46 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, for the sake of an interlude of balance, I guess Ginsberg is as good an example as any to use. He was certainly adored by '60s counterculture because he was one of the three key founders of the Beat Generation movement. ("The Howl" is a gospel classic in that respect.) And the eccentric little fart was cherished by the New Left long afterwards.

So on the opposite pole of promoting anti-traditional values, we could say that Ginsberg probably treated a variety things as "fact" that were also more art, subjective rhetoric, ideology, pseudoscience, and PoMo-like speak (Naropa University). Also, Ginsberg being a supporter and member of NAMBLA and a fan of various communist leaders, and so-forth, would correspond to whatever is "caveman scary" about Peterson on the traditional side.

But later Hollywood culture loved Ginsberg in spite of that, because any crank stuff on his part might have facilitated and been friendly with its views (to oversimplify and be quick here). Thus there is a double standard of (still living) Peterson being more vehemently discredited due to his proposed treating of "art, subjective rhetoric, ideology, pseudoscience, and PoMo-like speak" as fact.

Aside from maybe a couple of other brief spots, even RationalWiki largely seems to only feature Ginsberg as a passing mention in a "fun section" section along with other "embarrassing liberals". Whereas Peterson gets serious rather than light-hearted attention.

Coincidentally, the video that you posted containing scenes from Pinocchio is shown in one of Peterson’s lectures in regards to pedophiles.

C C Wrote:NAMBLA itself is discussed in an almost tempered tone compared to other entries, with the reference to moral panic suggesting a kind of "Oh, let's not carried away with regarding these fun-loving guys back in their heyday as if they a were major contributor to pedophilia and its spread".

True, but pedophiles don’t really have free speech even when dealing with just textual works. In fact, a few years ago, Amazon issued a statement concerning a book they were selling that caught the attention of many but the author was arrested.

"Amazon believes it is censorship not sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable," spokesman Drew Herdener explained in an e-mail, in response to inquiries from CNBC. "Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."

Peterson is not really presenting his religious teachings in an objective manner, though, is he? I thought that the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause meant that schools were not permitted to promote or inhibit religion.

A perilous decline in Christianity and apocalyptic nihilists and mobs, oh, my!

It’s not going to make much difference to my future, in some sense. I have more opportunities at the moment than I can keep track of, let alone (let’s say) capitalize on. It’s a complex and surreally fortunate position to occupy, and I’m not taking it for granted, but it happens to be true. In the fall, therefore, I will produce the lectures I plan to produce on Exodus, regardless of whether they occur in the UK or in Canada or elsewhere, and they will attract whatever audience remains interested. But I think that it is deeply unfortunate that the authorities at the Divinity school in Cambridge decided that kowtowing to an ill-informed, ignorant and ideologically-addled mob trumped participating in an extensive online experiment in mass Christian and psychological education. Given the continued decline of church attendance, the rise in atheistic or agnostic sentiment, the increasing irrelevance of theological education and the collapse in interest in such matters among young people, wiser and more profound decisions might have been made.

You see, it matters whether people around the world understand these ancient stories. It deeply matters. We are becoming unmoored, because we no longer share the structure these stories undergird. This is psychologically destabilizing. It’s producing a pathological and desperate nihilism that is increasingly common and, at the same time, a pronounced proclivity for the ideological certainty that mimics but cannot replace true religious belief. Both consequences are bound to be, as the evidence certainly indicates, divisive and truly dangerous.

I think the Faculty of Divinity made a serious error of judgement in rescinding their offer to me (and I’m speaking about those unnamed persons who made that specific decision). I think they handled publicizing the rescindment in a manner that could hardly have been more narcissistic, self-congratulatory and devious.

I believe that the parties in question don’t give a damn about the perilous decline of Christianity, and I presume in any case that they regard that faith, in their propaganda-addled souls, as the ultimate manifestation of the oppressive Western patriarchy, despite their hypothetical allegiance to their own discipline.

I think that it is no bloody wonder that the faith is declining (and with it, the values of the West, as it fragments) with cowards and mountebanks of the sort who manifested themselves today at the helm.

I wish them the continued decline in relevance over the next few decades that they deeply and profoundly and diligently work toward and deserve.
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/blog-pos...ellowship/

Aww, poor little snowflake.

Why do I find his unconscious hypocrisy so funny? I don’t know but I do. Big Grin

(Jun 21, 2019 02:16 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Coincidentally, the video that you posted containing scenes from Pinocchio is shown in one of Peterson’s lectures in regards to pedophiles.

The JP Drinking Song video was made by a British musician called Akira the Don. Appearance-wise initially, I thought it was surely parodying Peterson. Then some comments inclined me to feel it was instead a neutral creation. But he might even be a groupie. Depends upon whether "Akira the Don has been integrating philosophically inspired lyrical content into his music" means that he is just selecting these individuals for the ornamental semantic glitter or he is choosing them because they personally appeal to him.

Heck, I guess he really is, if going by this: "Actually, the young men who follow Peterson are not the deplorable ‘fan boys’ or ‘alt-right nazi scumbags’ that Peterson haters say they are. Young fans of Peterson are clued-in to the cultural zeitgeist in a way that the ‘champagne socialists’—who have snidely called Peterson ‘the stupid man’s smart person’ — are not. These academics and journalists have reacted hysterically to Peterson—calling him a ‘fascist mystic’ and other less pretty names—and they have also attacked his fans. This is reminiscent of the way that Hilary Clinton called working people ‘deplorables’— ‘fanboy’ is just another word for deplorable here. The implication is that Peterson fans are a lesser species of mongoloid, or at best lower class. But actually Peterson fans are diverse and intelligent and they span the the political spectrum.

"[...] Today the feminine principal is idolised and the masculine reviled, but we need a balance. Generation Xers like myself could have used a good male role model like Peterson. There were very few in the 90’s: we worshipped types like Kurt Cobain, with his seductive narcissism and world-hating nihilism and gloom. But even Kurt Cobain did provide some of the real drama and danger that young men long for — just as gangster rap did before it became ‘safe’ and gentrified, as most popular art forms generally do. When the popular culture gets plastic, the real lo-fi heavyweight rappers come back to rescue the father from the bottom of the ocean. How strange that this new rapper is named Jordan B Peterson."

Apparently, someone doesn't understand defamation law either. Rolleyes

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13