Jordan Peterson

[metatron]

LDO.

Landesdisziplinarordnung?

Spoiler :

You don't care about the translation. Trust me.

The basic definition of a genius is someone with an IQ of 150 or above. I can think of four or five people (at least, not including myself) here that would fit that target range. In fact, I would argue that the majority of the posters in OT are of above average intelligence.

A while back Hygro posited that there are those users that test for a certain number and have made notice of that fact in relevant threads, and that then there are users who test outside of those numbers but don't exactly reveal that fact for the sake of various considerations in the realm of game theory.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A while back Hygro posited that there are those users that test for a certain number and have made notice of that fact in relevant threads, and that then there are users who test outside of those numbers but don't exactly reveal that fact for the sake of various considerations in the realm of game theory.

@Hygro tends to take a more than average complicated view of events.

 

[Kyriakos]

At any rate, Peterson does seem to be attaching (due to personal reason) way too much importance to his brand of sexism. Eg in how he is so invested in arguing that you can't carry a discussion with women. His argument is not bright either; i mean he even mentions 'getting physical' as a last resort with a male debater -- seriously? that is there in theory, but no one cares about your physical strength and wouldn't debate you with that in mind.

For Peterson's own video, where he speaks of the issues (about physical strength etc) : start the vid at min 1.

This isn't a hill with any notable mausoleums, so maybe opt to not fall there.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Forming an opinion of what someone says based on the title of a clickbait video probably isn't the greatest idea, just saying.

 

[Kyriakos]

Forming an opinion of what someone says based on the title of a clickbait video probably isn't the greatest idea, just saying.

Which is why one should always listen to Peterson, who is - surprise, right - in the video.

Your reaction is even funnier, given the person who made the video actually agrees with Peterson's view on this And he has Pet's own video inside it, saying those things.
For Peterson: start the vid at min 1.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

"Don't waste your time debating women" is a complete misrepresenation of what he actually says in the video though, and you said "he is so invested in arguing that you can't carry a discussion with women". So... I don't think it's unreasonably to deduce you're forming your opinion based on the video title rather than the video content.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Ability to bounce back is good, but not when empty-handed, regardless of optional grimace.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Okay, just type gibberish as a reply then, that works too.

 

[El_Machinae]

Most of us who aren't university educators were and are pretty comfortable calling creationists morons to be perfectly honest. Nobody's got time for that.

We can't. We're talking to 19 year olds. They're not so much morons as products of their environment. They're clever enough to have gotten to our courses, and then we have to figure out how to either get them through our courses or shuttle them to areas where their bias won't hurt them as much. My students were grad students, so I'd only gotten them after they've been through the filter. But I had to watch it a couple of times.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

At any rate, Peterson does seem to be attaching (due to personal reason) way too much importance to his brand of sexism. Eg in how he is so invested in arguing that you can't carry a discussion with women. His argument is not bright either; i mean he even mentions 'getting physical' as a last resort with a male debater -- seriously? that is there in theory, but no one cares about your physical strength and wouldn't debate you with that in mind.

For Peterson's own video, where he speaks of the issues (about physical strength etc) : start the vid at min 1.

This isn't a hill with any notable mausoleums, so maybe opt to not fall there.

Quote: "If you are talking to a man who wouldn't fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever (he means physically), then you are talking to someone for whom you have absolutely no respect."

Peterson is a ******* brainlet. There's just no way around it.

Bobby Fischer is most certainly a genius, probably not only in relation to chess, but he falls for something as pathetically stupid as a enourmous jewish conspiracy theory, the revelations of the elders of zion et cetera. Despite having a jewish mother he openly called for the murder of all jews in prestigious position. (Turns out he had daddy issues and his dad was jewish as well, welp).

A similiar case is Ted Kaczinsky, who was an absolute mathematical genius, had some very "interesting" political ideas, but ultimately fell for the big ideology trap. Much of TISAIF is just rants about "communists are like this, communists do that, leftists are like this, leftists do that" and so forth.

Many intelligent people fall for dumb ideas, make dumb statements and should most definitely be called out for it. Peterson absolutely fell for the "postmodernists are trying to destroy western civilization" trope, mainly due to his obvious lack of knowledge on 20th century philosophy, the social and cultural sciences and so forth.

WRT this thread: I actually got myself "Maps of Meaning" (the subject of the book is highly interesting to me either way, and I don't want to dismiss Pebblestone's writings before actually reading some of his work), will probably dig in tomorrow.

 

[Kyriakos]

Quote by Peterson: "If you are talking to a man who wouldn't fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever (he means physically), then you are talking to someone for whom you have absolutely no respect."

Peterson is a ******* brainlet. There's just no way around it.

Indeed. This Peterson guy is filled with bizarre views. This particular one of his, re physical threat being always there in a discussion, is - if anything - something revealing his own fears, and not in touch with reality. I don't think i ever discuss stuff with people i have any reason to believe would at some point become violent due to reasons.

Reminds me a bit of Freud's idea about "the complete dominance of thoughts" (a theory by Freud, a name for the animistic belief of some of his patients, that thoughts are all-powerful and not just something internal). Seems Peterson is of the view that his thinking is something actually serving as a first stage of defense or something. Yet he isn't living in King Lear, as a jester, nor quite in elementary school or even highschool.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Okay, just type gibberish as a reply then, that works too.

@Kyriakos
Well done. Your pointedly snarky remark appears to have passed cleanly over his head.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That analogy doesn't suddenly create a moral distinction between stating a hypothesis and stating an opinion.

The moral distinction comes in that hypothesis are things that let you test belief against evidence. Updating beliefs based on evidence is necessarily morally sound.

Put another way, ignoring evidence is necessarily immoral. One does have to be careful with the process however. Evidence should have predictive value for reality.

 

[Chose]

Quote: "If you are talking to a man who wouldn't fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever (he means physically), then you are talking to someone for whom you have absolutely no respect."

Peterson is a ******* brainlet. There's just no way around it.

@Timsup2nothin, do you have any issue with that quote from Peterson?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Indeed. This Peterson guy is filled with bizarre views. This particular one of his, re physical threat being always there in a discussion, is - if anything - something revealing his own fears, and not in touch with reality. I don't think i ever discuss stuff with people i have any reason to believe would at some point become violent due to reasons.

This however has some practical inaccuracies. It may work for you, but many people are not in positions where they have complete control over who they have conversations with.

In a recent misadventure with a county department I demanded to see a supervisor, and immediately launched out of my chair to pace like a caged animal until they arrived. No blatant threat of a criminal nature, but also no question that when the supervisor got there and took in the situation at a glance I was going to get my way, which I did. And my business partner can now go there whenever needed and he will be served with an alacrity rooted in "if we don't get this done the other guy may come back." This works because just by virtue of size and voice I bring an unspoken physical threat to every conversation, and I know how to leverage it.

 

[Kozmos]

Quote: "If you are talking to a man who wouldn't fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever (he means physically), then you are talking to someone for whom you have absolutely no respect."

I always wondered why violence between men can breed absurdly strong friendships. That said, he's not entirely wrong. People will walk all over you if they can smell fear of confrontation in you. Not all people obviously, but you will become a joke, whether overtly or covertly and there is always that calculation in my head at least. You don't also make the same kind of jokes to overpowered juggernauts of men compared to people you could conceivably take on if things turn physical.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

@Kyriakos
Well done. Your pointedly snarky remark appears to have passed cleanly over his head.

It didn't answer anything I said. But well done for piping up as usual. You're very reliable.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It didn't answer anything I said. But well done for piping up as usual. You're very reliable.

Indeed I am. Thanks for noticing.

By the way, not every snarky comment has to be somehow rooted in giving an answer. Sometimes when someone merits nothing better than snark the snark can just stand on its own and be hilariously funny.

 

[aelf]

The moral distinction comes in that hypothesis are things that let you test belief against evidence. Updating beliefs based on evidence is necessarily morally sound.

Put another way, ignoring evidence is necessarily immoral. One does have to be careful with the process however. Evidence should have predictive value for reality.

Err, no. That was my point. You can convert near any opinion into hypothesis. It doesn't conveniently nullify moral objections people might have about stating certain opinions.

 

[Kyriakos]

This however has some practical inaccuracies. It may work for you, but many people are not in positions where they have complete control over who they have conversations with.

In a recent misadventure with a county department I demanded to see a supervisor, and immediately launched out of my chair to pace like a caged animal until they arrived. No blatant threat of a criminal nature, but also no question that when the supervisor got there and took in the situation at a glance I was going to get my way, which I did. And my business partner can now go there whenever needed and he will be served with an alacrity rooted in "if we don't get this done the other guy may come back." This works because just by virtue of size and voice I bring an unspoken physical threat to every conversation, and I know how to leverage it.

Come on, what Pet is saying isn't that 'at some point you may have to carry a discussion with people who may even become violent'. What he is saying is "at every discussion with males you have any respect for, there is a real chance you may end up having a physical fight". Which is really bizarre and way too particular an idea.

Here is Swarte-Pete with the quote itself:

If you are talking to a man who wouldn't fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever (he means physically), then you are talking to someone for whom you have absolutely no respect.