(Jun 27, 2019 12:18 AM)Syne Wrote: I play devil's advocate with every opinion I argue. Too bad you're not capable of coming up with any arguments that are either challenging or I haven't thought of.
You're so sad and lazy, you're essentially asking me to make your arguments for you. Do your own homework.
Personally, I think her beef is mostly with him being a man, trying to teach other guys to be responsible, productive men. Rubs her misandry the wrong
Peterson deals a lot in philosophy, which SS doesn't like. So like anyone who can't be bothered to learn a subject, she balks about it being obtuse...when many others obviously find it quite palatable. Then she does some hand waving about studies and interpretations she neither details nor refutes. Then she tries to convince herself that you'd think otherwise if you had watched/read more. It's the last ditch effort to avoid answering for her hatred and all the ad hominems in lieu of simple rebuttals.
What are taking about? I love philosophy.
I’m not really worried about your opinion, though, Syne. You’re only capable of attacking the person, not the argument. If I was you, though, I would be embarrassed by your Peterson impersonation. You’ve presented his arguments and views as if they were your own without giving him the proper credit. Your defense that you’ve held the same views even before watching his YouTube channel was pathetic.
Yazata is more of a hit and run type of guy. If he’s interested, though, I’ll happily supply him with entire video lectures, notes from his books, and transcriptions from his videos that incorporate pseudoscience, sexist views, shallow interpretations, and plenty of fallacies, one being an appeal to ancient wisdom.
(Jun 27, 2019 12:18 AM)Syne Wrote: I play devil's advocate with every opinion I argue. Too bad you're not capable of coming up with any arguments that are either challenging or I haven't thought of.
You're so sad and lazy, you're essentially asking me to make your arguments for you. Do your own homework.
Personally, I think her beef is mostly with him being a man, trying to teach other guys to be responsible, productive men. Rubs her misandry the wrong
Peterson deals a lot in philosophy, which SS doesn't like. So like anyone who can't be bothered to learn a subject, she balks about it being obtuse...when many others obviously find it quite palatable. Then she does some hand waving about studies and interpretations she neither details nor refutes. Then she tries to convince herself that you'd think otherwise if you had watched/read more. It's the last ditch effort to avoid answering for her hatred and all the ad hominems in lieu of simple rebuttals.
What are taking about? I love philosophy.
You sure don't sound knowledgeable enough to "love philosophy".
Quote:I’m not really worried about your opinion, though, Syne. You’re only capable of attacking the person, not the argument.
What argument? Where? Did you finally get around to making one? O_o
Quote:If I was you, though, I would embarrassed by your Peterson impersonation. You’ve presented his arguments and views as if they were your own without giving him the proper credit. Your defense that you’ve held the same views even before watching his YouTube channel was pathetic.
LOL! I was posting the same opinions long before Peterson had an online presence. But...whatever you need to tell yourself, deary.
Quote:Yazata is more of a hit and run type of guy. If he’s interested, though, I’ll happily supply him with entire video lectures, notes from his books, and transcriptions from his videos that incorporate pseudoscience, sexist views, shallow interpretations, and plenty of fallacies, one being an appeal to ancient wisdom.
Again, a host of ad hominem accusations without a single attempt at explicitly defining any of them.
And Peterson doesn't appeal to ancient wisdom solely for its own sake, which means you don't even understand the fallacy you're trying to cite.
(Jun 26, 2019 04:54 PM)Yazata Wrote: Yes, this whole thread seems to be SS's attempts to trash and demean Jordan Peterson. In other words, it seems to me to be motivated primarily by her hatred for the man. That hatred is what interests me, not the arcane ins and outs of Canadian defamation law.
(Jun 27, 2019 02:05 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: If I was you, though, I would be embarrassed by your Peterson impersonation. You’ve presented his arguments and views as if they were your own without giving him the proper credit.
Well, there’s your answer, but hatred is a strong word, Yazata. Syne annoys me but it’s not just me.
(Apr 18, 2019 11:22 AM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: Your big "gotcha" moment (which isn't one) isn't a point central to the discussion, and was initially just an off-the cuff remark on my part that you've latched onto like remora because you don't really have anything else to get worked up about.
Look, I am tired of having to address your lack of comprehension and your meaningless bullshit. You're a blot on this place, which is a shame, because some others are a credit and it might have become something more than it is if it hadn't been for your presence.
I'm not here to help you with your self-esteem issues. No one is. You need to address them some other way, in my opinion. Or maybe it'd be simpler just to say you need to grow up, and understand that not everyone is going to buy into your misunderstood intellectual persona.
Yazata Wrote:So what's wrong with Jordan Peterson? Why is he generating this response?
It typically isn't writing style that elicits this kind of hatred anyway. There seems to be something psychologically deeper at work.
My guess is it's his arrogance…
The simple answer is that, despite all our natural inclination and practice, much of our self-presentation backfires. And it backfires because we too often misunderstand the tradeoff between self-promotion—blowing our own horn—and humility. The fact is that modesty, or even self-effacement, can be more effective than bragging in creating a good first impression. Most of us know this from being on the receiving end, yet we still err on the side of self-aggrandizement.
But why do we get it wrong so much of the time? Here’s where some new research may be illuminating. Psychological scientist Irene Scopelliti of City University London and her colleagues believe that this common but harmful behavior is really a failure of emotional perspective taking. Emotional perspective taking requires predicting how somebody else will respond to your situation—putting yourself in their shoes and adjusting for what you see.
But bridging this so-called “empathy gap” is very difficult, and we often fail at it. We assume that others share in our emotions, and thus underestimate the real difference between our emotions and the emotions of others. So we talk openly about our achievements and successes—we brag—because we genuinely believe that others share our joy and pride in those accomplishments. When they don’t—and they often don’t—our self-presentation fails. We are annoying.
At least that’s the hypothesis that Scopelliti and her colleagues decided to test in a few experiments. They wanted to see if self-promoters overestimate others’ positive reactions to them, and underestimate the negative. To test this, they asked a group of subjects to describe in detail an occasion when they bragged to someone about something. They were then asked to describe the emotions they had felt, and the emotions they believed the recipient had felt. Other subjects did the opposite, describing a time when someone had bragged to them. The scientists expected that self-promoters would be more likely than recipients to experience positive emotions, and that they would erroneously project those positive emotions on to the recipient.
And that’s just what they found. Self-promoters were more likely to report positive emotions, and much more likely to believe that recipients also felt positive emotions, when in fact they had not. Similarly, self-promoters were less likely to report negative emotions, and less likely to project negative emotions on to the recipient—when in fact that’s what the recipients felt. In other words, self-promoters’ judgments were egocentric. They were unable to fully adjust their perspective and imagine someone else being annoyed with their bragging. [1]
And similar to Syne’s low-quality (gotcha moments) he’s giving people the impression that he’s holding back something precious [Gollum], forcing you to try understand and reconstruct it, but when his explanations fail to meet your expectations, you’re left feeling frustrated, annoyed, and disappointed. When he’s called out on it, like Syne, he either claims that it was simply your lack of understanding or he back peddles.
Yazata Wrote:Bottom line: SS's little jihad is having precisely the opposite of its intended effect in my case. I find myself more interested in and curious about Jordan Peterson than I was before I encountered this thread.
Are you just trying to annoy me?
Quote:I shouldn’t say this, but I’m going to, because it’s just so goddamn funny I can’t help but say it: I’ve figured out how to monetize social justice warriors," Peterson told the podcast host Joe Rogan. "If they let me speak, then I get to speak, and then I make more money on Patreon ... if they protest me, then that goes up on YouTube, and my Patreon account goes WAY up.—Jordan Peterson.
Truth be known, though, I’m glad. This might be something that I can discuss with you because I highly doubt that Syne has read Becker, Heidegger, Jung, Nietzsche, or any other works that Peterson refers to.
(Jun 26, 2019 04:54 PM)Yazata Wrote: Yes, this whole thread seems to be SS's attempts to trash and demean Jordan Peterson. In other words, it seems to me to be motivated primarily by her hatred for the man. That hatred is what interests me, not the arcane ins and outs of Canadian defamation law.
(Jun 27, 2019 02:05 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: If I was you, though, I would be embarrassed by your Peterson impersonation. You’ve presented his arguments and views as if they were your own without giving him the proper credit.
Well, there’s your answer, but hatred is a strong word, Yazata. Syne annoys me but it’s not just me.
(Apr 18, 2019 11:22 AM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: Your big "gotcha" moment (which isn't one) isn't a point central to the discussion, and was initially just an off-the cuff remark on my part that you've latched onto like remora because you don't really have anything else to get worked up about.
Look, I am tired of having to address your lack of comprehension and your meaningless bullshit. You're a blot on this place, which is a shame, because some others are a credit and it might have become something more than it is if it hadn't been for your presence.
I'm not here to help you with your self-esteem issues. No one is. You need to address them some other way, in my opinion. Or maybe it'd be simpler just to say you need to grow up, and understand that not everyone is going to buy into your misunderstood intellectual persona.
And similar to Syne’s low-quality (gotcha moments) he’s giving people the impression that he’s holding back something precious [Gollum], forcing you to try understand and reconstruct it, but when his explanations fail to meet your expectations, you’re left feeling frustrated, annoyed, and disappointed. When he’s called out on it, like Syne, he either claims that it was simply your lack of understanding or he back peddles.
Again, you're doing the exact same unsubstantiated ad hominems, with a consensus fallacy to boot, that this thread of yours is chock full of about Peterson.
Seriously, seek some help so you can finally let some things go and quit riling yourself up. Might be what's spoiling your marriage.
Quote:Truth be known, though, I’m glad. This might be something that I can discuss with you because I highly doubt that Syne has read Becker, Heidegger, Jung, Nietzsche, or any other works that Peterson refers to.
I don't typically read contemporary philosophers, nor literal Nazis (Heidegger), but I've read plenty of Jung and Nietzsche.
(Jun 27, 2019 11:20 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, you're doing the exact same unsubstantiated ad hominems, with a consensus fallacy to boot, that this thread of yours is chock full of about Peterson.
Seriously, seek some help so you can finally let some things go and quit riling yourself up. Might be what's spoiling your marriage.
The difference between you and I, is that at any point where there’s even a hint of having a genuine conversion, I can do an instant 180. I fully understand my dislike of Peterson and his ilk. I have a legitimate concerns and I can present them without ad hominems. Just say when.
LeighaJun 29, 2019 06:29 PM (This post was last modified: Jun 29, 2019 06:48 PM by Leigha.)
Jordan Peterson tends to speak out against the collective societal narratives, and some of them rub up against feminism. I don't agree with everything he suggests, but some of his talks are interesting. I don't believe it's fair to dub him a sexist or misogynist, but it's easy to do off the cuff, without really understanding where he's coming from. He seems to be taking on a reputation much like Nietzsche - you either love him or hate him. lol
Out of curiosity, Syne - why do you keep telling SS to get marriage counseling? Simply because she dislikes Jordan Peterson?
Jordan Peterson definitely has an interesting following, a combination of healthy, mentally well adjusted men and quite a few red pill/bitter men. It's curious, but I find him from a woman's perspective, to be tolerable and somewhat original in terms of questioning society's narratives. But, many of society's narratives were birthed from an opposition to oppressive narratives that were created before them. (patriarchy, racism, etc) I don't find Peterson to be a caustic bully who is looking to convert minds. He simply speaks his own mind.
SyneJun 29, 2019 07:36 PM (This post was last modified: Jun 29, 2019 07:38 PM by Syne.)
Oh, SS mentioned not liking PDA and her husband only showing it for the sake of others.
(Jun 21, 2019 11:13 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I'm not into PDA but that's how I know another man is nearby. It's the only time that my husband ever grabs my hand or puts his arm around me.
Next time he tries that shit, I'll yank my hand away and tell him that my sexual orientation is private. I don't want anyone to know I'm heterosexual. WTF is he thinking?
And since she's decided to turn her ad hominems against Peterson against me too, turn around is fair play.
(Jun 29, 2019 02:07 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jun 27, 2019 11:20 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, you're doing the exact same unsubstantiated ad hominems, with a consensus fallacy to boot, that this thread of yours is chock full of about Peterson.
Seriously, seek some help so you can finally let some things go and quit riling yourself up. Might be what's spoiling your marriage.
The difference between you and I, is that at any point where there’s even a hint of having a genuine conversion, I can do an instant 180. I fully understand my dislike of Peterson and his ilk. I have a legitimate concerns and I can present them without ad hominems. Just say when.
When.
Consider it to ALWAYS be when.
Good on you for finally admitting to all your ad hominems. I seriously doubt you can muster any actual arguments that refute specific things he has said.
Good on you for finally admitting to all your ad hominems. I seriously doubt you can muster any actual arguments that refute specific things he has said.
Deal.
I have to help my friend put together some flower arrangements but I might have some time this evening.
P.S. I can leave out ad hominems, but not the sarcasm. I’d lose my ever lovin' mind, if I had to give that up.
(Jun 29, 2019 07:28 PM)Syne Wrote: See, not only can't secular people make a compelling case for secular spirituality (aside from some hokey new age mysticism), they have to quote other secular people who can't either. Desperately trying to establish a consensus fallacy.
Since you brought this up, can we start with this first? Let’s tackle his opinion on hokey new age mysticism, shall we?
Quote:The new age is a very optimistic and naive movement. Its predicated on the idea that you can do nothing say follow your bliss and that will take you ever higher to enlightenment and that’s not the Jungian idea at all. The Jungian idea is that what you most need will be found where you least want to look. So, there’s this story of King Arthur and they’re all at this round table, right? King Arthur and his knights are all equals—they’re all superordinate but they’re all equals and they go off to look for the Holy Grail. From the Holy Grail is the container of the redemptive substance, whatever that is. It might be the cup that Christ used at Last Supper or it might be a chalice used to capture his blood on the cross, right? When he was pierced by a sword. The stories differ but that’s the Holy Grail and the Holy Grail is lost. That’s the redemptive substance, and the knights of King Arthur go off to search for the Holy Grail, but they don’t know where to look. So, where do you look, when you don’t know where to look for something that you need desperately but I’ve lost? Well, each of the knights goes into the forest at the point where it looks darkest to him and that’s Jungian’s psychoanalysis in a nut shell. It’s like that which you fear and avoid, that which you hold in contempt, that which disgusts you, and that you avoid, that’s the gateway to what you need to know. There’s nothing new age about that, that’s for sure.~Jordan Peterson
Jung is one of the prominent thinkers thought to influence the New Age Movement. While New Agers may lean towards magical thinking when it comes to symbolism, both parties hope to provide literal interpretations of the symbols and myths. Both are a collection of beliefs and practices and both attempt to interpret ancient beliefs with the hope of bridging science and religion.
Peterson is a traditionalist that honors the religious framework of our civilization. As you’ve pointed out before, like you, he doesn’t believe in a literal god as most Christians do, but he admits to being a Christian apologist.
He argues for the validity of a religious perspective and orientation towards life—an orientation that’s centered in meaning. This may corresponds with Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial, but as you may know, many prominent atheists disagree with Gould’s conclusion. As Dawkins pointed out, an existence and creation claim is scientific.
Peterson’s religious perspective is simplistic and straight forward. He says that it’s a desire for all things to thrive insofar as that’s possible. A desire for people to speak the truth, and act out the truth, and act responsibly, and all of that. And he thinks that there’s something transcendently necessary about all of that and that it is the antidote to hell.
His desire to speak the truth is something that I’d like to come back to, but first, I’d appreciate it, if you would be kind enough to provide us with the key differences between his views and New Age religion.
Oh, and could you please explain the difference between his outlook and an appeal to ancient wisdom?
Jun 27, 2019 02:05 AM
(This post was last modified: Jun 27, 2019 03:39 AM by Secular Sanity.)
