Are you a robot?
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
I can’t teach it to you over a post on a forum, but I can tell you how it is done, and I did. Besides that, you already said you think it is impossible to do and is “from god”, whatever that means, so forgive me for not wasting my time.
Yeah… because man didn’t understand where the sun went at night. Solid.
Have you been to the dark side of the moon?
awareness of one's self as self. distinctly meta in nature and somewhat "virtual".
what do you mean by "think"?
he gave you a good example. examining text for bias. that means reading against the grain for subjective arguments, or other selves, and constructing an objective picture from it via synthesis and deduction.
I am a fan of Pink Floyd.
I'm acute, my other half says so?
What do you even mean by we?
Are you talking about The Royal we, or are you alluding to some spurious collective? Are you even aware of the grand pantheistic unity of all things to each other, residing within their cosmological stasis? Where ex nihilo nihil fit, and all lie rigid within a crustacean shell.
That went right over my head , I'm sorry.
That blew my mind a little. I think I'll leave it there for tonight. Many thanks.
I'm actually enjoying your posts in this thread, and think you add some liveliness to it, but I don't think you know what some words mean
You replied to a list of bullet points and described it as verbose
You asked how one would learn to think for oneself, which by definition is "form opinions and make decisions", but it then became apparent you were talking about consciousness
I used the words systems and framework, which could be applied to a massive range of things, from an ant colony to the Vatican, and you seem to think these descriptors are exclusive to robots.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to discourage your posting at all. You're the mvp of the thread and it stops it from devolving into a discussion about how much of a weirdo JP is (a big one), but I honestly don't know if you're trolling half the time or if you're just an unusual fellow
By not saying extremely dumb, cringey, meaningless things like "up yours woke moralists, we'll see who cancels who", obviously. If you think that's a normal thing to say for a real person, then you've fallen too far down the Peterson black hole.
I wish Harris would spend as much time worrying about context as you're sugessting we do.
This is the cnut that when Guantanamo Bay was filled to the brim, wrote a "thought experiment" about if its okay to torture people if you knew they knew the location of a nuclear bomb that was about to go off.
It's evident to anyone that reads books that arent shit like the bell curve or petersons self help shit, that he does not knowing what he's talking about.
Harris can spend hours discussing Iraq when his knowledge is limited to Kurds here, Sunni here, Shjia here, Saddam Sunni bad against the others.
Anyone who isn't a fecking moron knows that this isn't sufficient knowledge to form an opinion with.
Gun to his head he probably wouldnt get the decade right the nation was founded. Yet hell produce hours of contrnt content detailing his thoughts on how its islams fault or something (another subject he rambles on for hours yet has never demonstrated he knows much about).
Harris is the dumb man's smart person.
Go read a book on the subject of his next podcast that isnt recommended by him and you'll see just how dim this guy is.
If that is too much work and you're interested in an oppossing view, search for Sam Seder's critique of Sam Harris
One of the historical events he focuses on quite heavily in his maps of meaning course is the Soviet Union era and how a population participating in a lie creates hell on earth. Fast forward a few years and we've got... Elon Musk?
Starting off my day with a quintessentially Colleen moment.
Starting off my day with a quintessentially Colleen moment.
Woah, never thought of it like that. Sure puts things in perspective.
Good morning
One born every day.
Nice trolling.
This particular degenerate has a whole thread dedicated to him.
He's a different vibe though. Not cloaked in pseudo-intellectualism like Peterson. Just a straight up, wannabe alpha male, misogynist. Surely there's nothing new about him though? Haven't kids been mainlining dubious misogynistic/right wing tropes on youtube for years now?
Oh I have missed it.
Not sure if it's new or not-there were many saying the same things (PUAs) but he seems to be popular among much younger people by spreading on algorithm-based giant sites rather than blogs.
Yeah, he seems to have used Tiktok quite effectively. That seems to differentiate him from the OG shit-heads. And TikTok is addictive at a level that even Youtube never quite managed.
Redcafe users calling modern intellectuals pseudo intellectual feels incredibly ironic somehow...
I tried listening to a lot of Slavoj Zizec as the stuff he came out with in his debate with Peterson was immensely intelligent ("it's easy to say to people clean your room, but if the Rest of the house is on fire what do you do" was an amazingly pertinent quote) but found it hard to follow mainly because of his style, accent, and of English not being his first language. So as much as I'd love to listen to a podcast from the left side, the closest I got was Lawrence Krauss - although he has since been "cancelled" of course
But it's weird how angry people get about Jordan Peterson because to my mind he's a lovely guy trying to figure the world out from a psychologists slant. And when you listen to his psychology it's world class stuff - his philosophy though, pretty hard to grapple with and maybe less insightful than Jordan Peterson seems to think it is. That said, the man makes great points and his stuff on Solzhenitsyn is scarily accurate. How do you run a country (like Russia) where things like the truth are anathema to state.
I tried listening to a lot of Slavoj Zizec as the stuff he came out with in his debate with Peterson was immensely intelligent ("it's easy to say to people clean your room, but if the Rest of the house is on fire what do you do" was an amazingly pertinent quote) but found it hard to follow mainly because of his style, accent, and of English not being his first language. So as much as I'd love to listen to a podcast from the left side, the closest I got was Lawrence Krauss - although he has since been "cancelled" of course
But it's weird how angry people get about Jordan Peterson because to my mind he's a lovely guy trying to figure the world out from a psychologists slant. And when you listen to his psychology it's world class stuff - his philosophy though, pretty hard to grapple with and maybe less insightful than Jordan Peterson seems to think it is. That said, the man makes great points and his stuff on Solzhenitsyn is scarily accurate. How do you run a country (like Russia) where things like the truth are anathema to state.
He really isn't. Is very hateful, always seems to have a grudge to settle and constantly attacks certain groups based on pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.
He's been on the spotlight for so long that by now those who can't see it, it's because they don't want to.
This thread is very much "tell me you're a cnut in real life without saying you're a cnut in real life" and surprisingly quite a few cnuts are coming out.
This must be where the Torys who are too scared to enter the politics thread hide.
Note: Not everyone's a cnut. It's quite ways to decipher who are from their posts.
This must be where the Torys who are too scared to enter the politics thread hide.
Note: Not everyone's a cnut. It's quite ways to decipher who are from their posts.
Every psychologist I know, and I know many, being married to one and socialising with her colleagues, thinks he's a fecking charlatan and is bringing the whole industry into disrepute. And you can't be an intellectual without actual intellect.
Which other psychologists do you listen to/read?
He has spoken to dozens of qualified scientists on his podcasts. Calling -everything- he says pseudoscience when there are many genuine attempts to listen to real science is strange to me. Though obviously you don't need to agree with the conclusions he draws (often formed by Peterson's obvious confirmation bias). Like - I don't agree at all with his beliefs regarding vaccination and it's tough to listen to. but on the other hand his exploration of the real work that is being done in the world in his podcast with Bjorn Lomberg is fascinating - the maths/economics of global improvement.
The clinical side of psychology or the academic side? Because like with any soft science the academic side doesn’t have much repute to begin with.
I didn't say everything he says is pseudoscience, he was a university professor so I would assume he knows stuff. I said the things he chooses to attack certain groups, like women or transgender, are pseudoscience. He's obviously prejudiced so he hides behind word salads and draws the conclusion he wanted all along, citing examples that are false.
What false examples does he cite, exactly? Because he genuinely tries to back up his arguments with some experimental / demonstrable evidence. Like again, I disagree with him on vaccinations but he does cite a Canadian doctors paper expressing their disapproval of their policy so even in that case there's at least some sort of background research.
And he doesn't "attack" women or Transgender people. It's the opposite if anything:. See: the infamous Cathy Newman debate.
Why do these psychologists think Peterson is a charlatan, exactly? At the very least, Peterson -taught- psychology at Harvard University and clearly had many high achieving clients, so it's not like he was BAD at his job. Maybe he's bad at philosophy, but that's not really a psychologists field.
I'm sorry mate but I really don't have the energy or time for this.
As I said, if at this point you can't see how he attacks women and transgender people, that it's because you don't want to. I mean, he was literally banned from twitter for attacking a transgender actor.
Admin Edit to remove reference to a banned poster.
That's just focusing on hot topics, ignoring all that, at his heart he's just a complete hypocrite. He's unable to live up to any of the virtues he espouses, which in itself would be fine (and possibly interesting if he acknowledged this) but instead he refuses to take any personal responsibility for his actions and mistakes, one of the core ideals he stands on.
Up yours woke moralists was very funny though
You're lucky that the other poster turned out to be sexually attracted to kids, because after that the thing I hate most is people misusing the term ironic
This might have been true a long time ago (or at least he was acting earnestly). The others mentioned in this thread I don't know much about, at least first hand. It's usually filtered through to me on places like here. I still think you can assess an argument from them without having consumed their entire backlog of work, but you definitely have less of a feel for them and lack a holistic understanding, at least that's the case with me. JP is a bit different for me, I find him interesting. I really liked his verbose way of conveying thoughts, I have his first two books and I've watched and read a lot of his work. I still find him interesting, but he's always had a lot of moronic takes. He's striker10 gone box office. This has only snowballed to the point that he's so wrapped up in coming out with the worst takeaways on the current discourse, that virtually everything he says is hilarious. It's only compounded by his lack of knowledge when it comes to both history and politics.
That's just focusing on hot topics, ignoring all that, at his heart he's just a complete hypocrite. He's unable to live up to any of the virtues he espouses, which in itself would be fine (and possibly interesting if he acknowledged this) but instead he refuses to take any personal responsibility for his actions and mistakes, one of the core ideals he stands on.
Up yours woke moralists was very funny though
Last edited by a moderator:
I honestly didn't know this, genuinely sorry about that mate you're quite right. I hadn't followed him since like a few months back when I was driving a few hours a week regularly and listening to various podcasts. Very strange hill for him to die on, he doesn't look well right now. Normally he is more composed and rational. I think the last few years have taken a serious toll on the guy...
@Cascarino
Yea having just seen the latest I see what you mean. A few years ago the guy was a force, but - I'm gonna defend him a final time here - he's got that autoimmune thing to deal with and I believe his family has had SERIOUS health issues, as well as Peterson himself, and it seems like it's turned him a bit less Cognizant and a bit more bitter with his words.
Clinical
Because of how he's misusing his qualification to make points he has no right to and making others think that there is some psychological basis for his claims.
It's not strange at all, it was just more direct and vitriolic that it used to be. His feelings about trans people haven't changed.
It goes all the way back to what brought him into the limelight; the Canadian C-16 bill. Of course he lied about it, but lets just be extremely charitable and say that he just misunderstood it spectacularly. The argument, mostly by his fans, was that his objections had nothing to do with pronouns, but rather only about compelled speech. He would be perfectly willing to use people's preferred pronouns, he just doesn't want to be forced to. This was never true. What he said was that he would use the preferred pronouns of his students provided that Peterson himself judged both that the request was reasonable/sincere and that the student in question presented themselves in a manner acceptable to him. As you can see there's already several qualifications here, but maybe they're theoretical and he'll use preferred pronouns in practice? No. This is not the first time Peterson has misgendered people. The first link is from an interview in 2016 where he misgenders his colleague A.W. Peet, and the second link is a video from 2019 where he misgenders Jessica Yaniv. In both of these instances he did it on purpose.
We could try to be extremely charitable once again and say that this is just two examples of a lovely man slipping up, but once again that is going to be impossible to defend. In 2016 he wrote an article in the Toronto Sun called Why I won’t use ‘preferred’ pronouns – and why you shouldn’t either. I can't find the article, this is a partial archive link. Here is a Youtube video where he says, quote: "I'm not saying those goddamn pronouns. And the reason I'm not saying them is they're made up by left-wing ideologues and I don't like left-wing ideology. I don't like ideology period. And I know where corruption of speech leads, and I'm not going there.", and here is a tweet where he very clearly says that trans woman Lia Thomas isn't a woman.
Even though he doesn't think trans people are the gender they identify as, and even though it turns out to be false that he is happy to use preferred pronouns, surely, though, he thinks being trans is a legitimate psychological phenomena? Not so fast. In the 2018 interview with Christie Blatchford he characterizes identifying as trans as a "psychological epidemic" akin to Freudian hysteria and multiple personality disorder. He says that we don't see those things anymore, because they weren't reflective of a real thing. He's at best partially wrong about what's now called dissoiative personality disorder, but the point is that he doesn't think that people who identify as trans actually are trans. He also says in the same interview that it's because people wanting to be oppressed victims, because that gives them social status.
It's no surprise that Peterson thinks that trans men like Elliot Page are women, or that treating trans people medically is criminal, it's what he has always believed. He just used to be a bit more careful with his language, but now that he openly works with and for people like Prager and Shapiro there's not much point in that.
Celebrity is the mask that eats the face. Peterson swallowed his own KOOLAID.
He was never some incredible orator or intellectual, just the internet doing its stuff again.
He was never some incredible orator or intellectual, just the internet doing its stuff again.
Never want to hear another thing from his cult-collective about "freedom, individualism, free thought". Man is a deluded clown, so far down the grifter rabbit hole that he's spewing this shit now.
"Go to Church, stop complaining, you're nothing, accept religion, your thoughts on the subject are meaningless....OBEY"
Utter fecking nutjob.