TIL: Today I Learned

[sophie]

I don't know why everyone hates on post-structuralism, it seems to me to be the logical progression of the Enlightenment tradition of critical inquiry that Peterson and co claim to be defending against it.

It's really bizarre going from Graduate seminars where Foucault and Derrida are fine/important albeit extremely dated, to the internet where you get the impression their works are tantamount to the ravings of a conspiracy theorist or The Fountainhead or Mein Kampf or something.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, that's kind of silly. If you're going to engage in serious critique of an intellectual tradition, you should first have at least engaged with some of the important works in that tradition.

The claim (to my knowledge) wasn't that one had to read x so as to produce a work in a niche tradition tangent or strictly tied to x, but something of overall intellectual value.

For some reason, I'm unsurprised

Cause you are a normie

 

[Lexicus]

The claim (to my knowledge) wasn't that one had to read x so as to produce a work in a niche tradition tangent or strictly tied to x, but something of overall intellectual value.

Go read the thing again, that was not the claim at all

Cause you are a normie

Dude I can get real w e i r d with it, don't test me

 

[sophie]

The claim (to my knowledge) wasn't that one had to read x so as to produce a work in a niche tradition tangent or strictly tied to x, but something of overall intellectual value.

Except engaging in a modern intellectual discussion in a social sciences or humanities field (in a serious setting) without having read the major poststructuralists is rather like attempting to enter into a discussion on Greek philosophical thought without having read any of Plato. It's virtually impossible to progress though any modern graduate-level history, philosophy, art history, political science, cultural studies, or anthropology curriculum/cursus without having run into them at some point. There's a reason for that.

Hell, I've been in my Master's program for 4 months now and I've already had much of the major hits of Foucault's ouvre assigned

 

[Synobun]

Why do I find people's small talk boring?


13 Answers

Jordan B Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, a clinical psychologist, a TVO essayist, lecturer and ...
Answered Apr 3, 2016 · Author has 92 answers and 3.5m answer views

Because you aren't good at listening and then carefully and attentively broadening the conversation. This may in part be because you are cynical with regards to the beginnings of social interaction. Why should strangers offer you anything of real value or take a risk with you until you have demonstrated your ability to handle simple social tasks competently (say without sarcasm or dismissiveness)? So they start off trading in pennies to check you out. You can be virtually certain, as well, that if you find initial small talk boring then the people who are boring you find you, in turn, awkward, charmless, equally boring and perhaps even a bit narcissistic.
​

I've always wanted the words for this, this is amazing.

This, plus the other answers to the question, is absolute drivel. It is the height of self-assured superiority to confidently say that anyone who doesn't like small talk is an awkward narcissist or, as another answer so poignantly described, is on the spectrum for autism.

But I suppose me thinking that just puts me in the same category, I guess.

 

[Lexicus]

or, as another answer so poignantly described, is on the spectrum for autism.

Can you quote this one?

Also FTR @Kyriakos I am not particularly inclined toward the small talk either. But it's certainly right that a disdainful attitude toward small talk ain't gonna get you anywhere. I was basically forced to learn how to do it in the service industry, because it makes the time go by faster during your boring shifts and because you get a lot more latitude from patrons at your workplace if you have friendly relationships with them.

This, plus the other answers to the question, is absolute drivel. It is the height of self-assured superiority to confidently say that anyone who doesn't like small talk is an awkward narcissist

This isn't exactly my reading of what he's saying. It's harsh but it also contains a key bit of advice - try listening and then carefully and attentively broadening the conversation. Small talk is often just inherently what you have to go through if you want to get to big talk.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, that's not what I got from him at all either. Rather, that people have the tendency to trust small before they trust big. Which is a rather sensible thing for most people to do. Being unable to engage in 10 seconds of polite conversation regarding the weather, if I signal I'm interested in it, is a very poor indicator that my trusting you with more is a good value proposition.

At least that would be closer to what I'm getting from him.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, that's basically what I get from him too. But I do think he's unnecessarily mean in the way that he says it.

 

[Farm Boy]

The hard impact is what helped me grok it(I think, grok is probably too strong). Every now and then I can handle a little "tellin' it like it is" in direct response to a direct question.

At least he didn't wander into small talk with the person who asked!

 

[Synobun]

Can you quote this one?

Kamia Taylor
Answered Apr 5, 2016 · Author has 4.1k answers and 1.6m answer views

I'm going to say that it's possible you are on the Asperger's syndrome spectrum, or one of the Meyer's Briggs personality types who has no time or patience for such talk, simply because it tends to be about meaningless and trivial matters in which you have no interest. Do you tend to prefer being in small groups of well-known friends with similar interests as opposed to a large party with many new potential acquaintances? If so, that would point to the personality types I mentioned above. It's not a crime, although you do need to remember that much as oil keeps a car engine moving, small talk is often the "oil" that lubricates an early relationship so you can even find out if the person has more inside their head.

This isn't exactly my reading of what he's saying. It's harsh but it also contains a key bit of advice - try listening and then carefully and attentively broadening the conversation. Small talk is often just inherently what you have to go through if you want to get to big talk.

Except that isn't really true. I don't participate in small talk (with strangers) and I've never had a particular issue making friends. It seems like a self-designed cycle where people think it's necessary and therefore participate in it because of the aforementioned belief.

 

[Farm Boy]

There are other ways to demonstrate engagement besides small talk?

 

[Kyriakos]

There are other ways to demonstrate engagement besides small talk?

You can throw money around

 

[Synobun]

There are other ways to demonstrate engagement besides small talk?

Yes. Talk about a subject you actually want to talk about. Skip the meter stick. If someone's going to be a knob, they're going to be that whether you first tentatively approach a chat about the weather or if you jump right in to the meat and potatoes.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, tbh, most people do need small-talk. I don't like small-talk either, but it is needed by most, so i try to oblige.
It rarely leads to much, imo. Though i personally could look less bored. Thing is that the important part is not what is being said - it is small-talk - but if you feel ok. Then you sort of are there already. Intellectually it is of no worth, but practically it is needed.

 

[Traitorfish]

Except engaging in a modern intellectual discussion in a social sciences or humanities field (in a serious setting) without having read the major poststructuralists is rather like attempting to enter into a discussion on Greek philosophical thought without having read any of Plato.

Which seems like something that would be deeply upsetting to the poststructuralists.

 

[Hygro]

I don't know why everyone hates on post-structuralism, it seems to me to be the logical progression of the Enlightenment tradition of critical inquiry into received wisdom that Peterson & co claim to be defending.

That's yeah, yeah that. It's like, dawg, you talk about the traditions that built us to here, but then don't see how they are progressing? He's like "ok it was good, so now it's gonna be different so turn back?" and I'm like, dude, really? turn back? What if we had turned back before? He doesn't understand the beyond.

and personally don't agree with his small-talk comment.

Yeah cuz he's describing you.

It is the height of self-assured superiority to confidently say that anyone who doesn't like small talk is an awkward narcissist

I guess I'm the third post responding the same thing, but what he said was: if you can't be trusted with small talk, why would they open up to you when you come across to them as a narcissist. Narcissists are bad with information, because narcissism is a break from reality tied into someone's ego. They might get triggered unfairly to you, and their information is clouded.

A good listener, or rather, a person good with senses (or good sense): already gets this and has enough stimulation from the near infinite number of clues given in that moment to navigate to a good next step.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm going to say that it's possible you are on the Asperger's syndrome spectrum, or one of the Meyer's Briggs personality types who has no time or patience for such talk, simply because it tends to be about meaningless and trivial matters in which you have no interest. Do you tend to prefer being in small groups of well-known friends with similar interests as opposed to a large party with many new potential acquaintances? If so, that would point to the personality types I mentioned above. It's not a crime, although you do need to remember that much as oil keeps a car engine moving, small talk is often the "oil" that lubricates an early relationship so you can even find out if the person has more inside their head.

This is intersting. As "one of the Meyer's Briggs personality types who has no time or patience for small talk" (INTP every time) I don't feel like I am being told I am on the Asperger's spectrum. And I also agree with him that small talk doesn't have to just be aimless small talk. It can be a useful way of learning whether it's worthwhile to open up to someone.

(As an aside, I'm sort of surprised that Peterson is treating Meyers Briggs types as though they're anything but glorified zodiac signs).

Yes. Talk about a subject you actually want to talk about. Skip the meter stick. If someone's going to be a knob, they're going to be that whether you first tentatively approach a chat about the weather or if you jump right in to the meat and potatoes.

Yes, this is the trick, isn't it? I'm glad to hear you are able to do this. Usually when I try to talk about things that interest me, people I just met think I'm weird or "too political" or whatever and ice me out. There are exceptions to this, whom I usually call "keepers." But even with those keepers, you usually have to go through at least a few exchanged sentences of what might be described as "small talk" before you get to the cool stuff. The key is using that small talk to sort of move toward the stuff you actually want to talk about a little more safely.

One way to short-circuit the small-talk requirement can be shared activities of some kind. That is a powerful socializing tool.

That's yeah, yeah that. It's like, dawg, you talk about the traditions that built us to here, but then don't see how they are progressing? He's like "ok it was good, so now it's gonna be different so turn back?" and I'm like, dude, really? turn back? What if we had turned back before? He doesn't understand the beyond.

He's still stuck in the structure, dude *coughing fit*

 

[Kyriakos]

Yeah cuz he's describing you.

That isn't fair. Actually it is quite indicative of your lack of modesty to attack me. For starters, i cannot be described by anyone of less intellect than myself.
No one gets me /cry

 

[Traitorfish]

There's something to the idea of small talk as a condition of and a testing ground for more authentic exchange.

But it feels like a stretch to diagnose somebody as a sociopath because they don't really want hear about your plans for the weekend.

So I find myself in the unusual position of playing the moderate.

 

[Mouthwash]

I mean, one of the basic demonstrations of his ignorance is that he refers to "cultural Marxism" when in fact Marxism is one of the structures that poststructuralism was uh...post-ing. Dogmatic Marxism is totally incompatible with post-structuralist thought and indeed you can find dogmatic Marxists denouncing "postmodernism" and "identity politics" in terms very similar to the ones Peterson uses, although they are mounting a defense of working-class revolutionary politics rather than "Western civilization" and "the enlightenment."

Both Marxists and a certain strain of poststructuralist are pretty on board with the whole "destroy the family, destroy modern institutions" thing. They may be opposed philosophies, but there's definitely some crossover in their goals.

This is a good review of Peterson's new book. The book is horrible on all kinds of levels. Ironically, given the fact that you're apparently a fan, his critique of what he calls postmodernism (from the book, it doesn't even appear that he's aware that a thing called 'poststructuralism' exists) basically originated from anti-Semitic conspiracy theories:

It doesn't show that it originated from antisemitic conspiracy theories. It simply highlights certain anti-Semites who have used the trope. "Racists support X, therefore all support of X is really disguised racism" is such a common and lazy smear tactic I'm not going to even read the rest of the article.