Lurker > Romes187

Balrog0 posted...

And he does defend hierarchies, don't be silly. He doesn't idealize them but he specifically claims that they arise because of differences in competence rather than the dynamics of 'power' per se

Interesting...do you disagree with that claim?

And you equate that to defending?

Balrog0 posted...

the only difference is that you guys agree with him and are therefore more charitable towards his arguments

The argument against him goes like this

1. There is inequality in our society
2. This inequality tends to displace minorities and women more than men and whites
3. Systemic racism and the patriarchy are solely or mostly to blame
4. Jordan Peterson does not believe this to be the case
5. Jordan Peterson does believe that systemic racism and the patriarchy do create SOME hierarchies based on power instead of authority, but that most sustainable long term hierarchies are based on competence
6. Therefore he is defending systemic racism / the patriarchy

Where I differ is that last point...I don't feel like he is defending things.

What say you

Balrog0 posted...

the other side: you don't see how defending hierarchies and specifically the patriarchy makes him alt-right?

He doesn't defend hierarchies. He says they exist, and not because of the patriarchy.

This is a big problem with critics of Peterson. Saying something exists does not equate to defending.... He wants to solve or at least ameliorate the inequality that does occur due to hierarchies, but thinks the aim is way off target.

And not sure of your point on the Marxism claim. Iyo does viewing society as a set of power struggles lend itself well to Marxist doctrine?

Godnorgosh posted...

Romes187 posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

Postmodernists do not necessarily deny the possibility of knowledge.

How can knowledge exist without objective truth (a claim made by the postmodernists)

I guess it depends on how you are defining knowledge

Postmodernism is characterized by a skepticism and rejection of (at least some of) the assumptions of modernism in particular, which is not the same as the radical skeptic's rejection of the possibility of knowledge in general.

One of those is grand narratives. Which means they don't believe there is any path to objective truth. So while they may believe it exists, we can't create any tools to find it. So how would we go about gaining knowledge in the post modernist viewpoint would be my next question, assuming it's possible

Godnorgosh posted...

Postmodernists do not necessarily deny the possibility of knowledge.

How can knowledge exist without objective truth (a claim made by the postmodernists)

I guess it depends on how you are defining knowledge

No I'm already maxed out with the stress I can handle right now

Maybe when my kid is older

Or also - see the radical subjectivism that is taking over in some cases...your opinion counts more if you are group X, because power differences.

Seems straightforward to me

Balrog0 posted...

Romes187 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I'm on mobile so hopefully I can respond more fully when I have more time but I don't think that he is. doing that for the most part. The fact that his most popular ideological argument is to conflate neo Marxism and post modernism despite the lack of academic acceptance that those are the same thing seriously undercuts that argument, IMO, though I still admit to not being an expert in evolutionary psychology

He's responded many times to the fact that he knows post modernism and marxism are incompatible

https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/

In case you're interested

The only argument he makes here is that Foucault and Derrida were Marxists even though they protested that description, because their formulation of societal relations reminds him of Marxism. He doesn't explain why they are or why he thinks they are, just that they are even though he knows they can't be both, and even though he knows both claim not to be.

This didn't help me understand him at all

If viewing society as governed by power relations doesn't speak of Marxism to you I'm not sure what else to say. I guess it's a difference of opinion.

But it'd hard to deny the ideologues who are attempting to get rid of categories (say, gender) don't also have a Marxist slant to them

But I guess we all see what we see

Again, all this is secondary to his maps of meaning lectures. I'd really recommend those if you're interested in understanding where he's coming from. If not I get it (it's about 40 hours of lectures) but they helped me see his viewpoint

COVxy posted...

Romes187 posted...

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

He's not an expert in every field, and that leads to things like the infamous lobster analogy

But it's not argued as an analogy. He's literally trying to argue certain things work in certain ways in humans because they work in lobsters that way. But the argument is extremely flawed and shallow.

His lobster argument is simply to show that dominance hierarchies are older than humans and clearly not brought about by "the patriarchy"

Seems strange to devote an entire chapter to standing up straight in relation to lobster physiology and serotonin then.

Did you read the book yet? or even the chapter? Did you notice how much he talks about dominance hierarchies in that chapter? Please tell me you actually read the chapter....because the last topic I kept asking you if you did and you said you didn't want to

so...like I don't know where to go from here guy.

what's weird is everyone acts like they have never said anything wrong...the guy has put 100's of hours of his thoughts out there.

it would be a miracle if everything was 100% perfect...but the hostility which he gets is weird

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

He's not an expert in every field, and that leads to things like the infamous lobster analogy

But it's not argued as an analogy. He's literally trying to argue certain things work in certain ways in humans because they work in lobsters that way. But the argument is extremely flawed and shallow.

His lobster argument is simply to show that dominance hierarchies are older than humans and clearly not brought about by "the patriarchy"

Dock Ellis

Most no hitters while on acid*

*maybe

Balrog0 posted...

I'm on mobile so hopefully I can respond more fully when I have more time but I don't think that he is. doing that for the most part. The fact that his most popular ideological argument is to conflate neo Marxism and post modernism despite the lack of academic acceptance that those are the same thing seriously undercuts that argument, IMO, though I still admit to not being an expert in evolutionary psychology

He's responded many times to the fact that he knows post modernism and marxism are incompatible

https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/

In case you're interested

yes absolutely

Jordan Peterson has some great stuff

He says some stuff I disagree with

Like every other public intellectual...what the hell is with the binary thinking

fwiw I tend to agree with JP more than I disagree. I've watched his maps of meaning lectures, his personality lectures, and his biblical lectures and they are really fun and engaging.

Its a damn shame the politics gets in the way of just enjoying someone's interesting train of thought...but he brings it upon himself since he likes doing interviews with knucklehead journalists who really are trying to trap him in an aha moment...but he's pretty good about not letting it happen.

I'm going to see him at the end of the month and my wife was kind enough to get us VIP tix to meet him for a Father's day gift. If you like lateral thinking about some outside the box ideas on psychology, religion, ideology, and personality, his lectures are fantastic. He talks a lot in metaphor (he says this is really the only way he can describe the metaphysical shit he's discussing) so be prepared

yeah not a very good opiate for the masses imo

though if you view "god" as some kind of version of reality then it makes sense....shitty things happen irl iykwim

spanky1 posted...

Romes187 posted...

she's my friend, old coworker, and a really nice and sweet person.

I hated the movie, but I hate how angry people get over things like this :(

wait wat

I worked for a small company (bout 5-10 of us at any time) and she worked there for a few years. Super nice lady...she moved up to L.A. to try and become an actress and apparently it worked out for her

Like seriously couldn't be a more sweet person in life at least from what I remember...in an almost naive way but not bad.

she's my friend, old coworker, and a really nice and sweet person.

I hated the movie, but I hate how angry people get over things like this :(

define "work"

pinky0926 posted...

Romes187 posted...

pinky0926 posted...

that is only the slightest bit tolerable

ah man you should hear more violin if you think the top players are only slightly tolerable

That wasn't really my point, perhaps I phrased it poorly. I love the violin but I really can't stand listening to the violin unless the person playing is a complete master at whatever their genre is.

Like when you walk down the street and there's some young girl playing violin for change. No I ain't giving you change Rebecca, your pinky finger is weak and and your positioning is sloppy

Ah. Yeah I thought you meant

Pro = only slightly tolerable
Anyone else = garbage

This topic will now include my 3 favorite violin centric pieces

pinky0926 posted...

that is only the slightest bit tolerable

ah man you should hear more violin if you think the top players are only slightly tolerable

anyone who likes catcher in the rye more than ham on rye really doesn't know whats going on

i think a problem is these works are multi thematic and to boil it all down to one thing seems silly. but such is the critical studies dept

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Romes187 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

come to Illinois if you want to pay $4500 a year in property tax for a tiny starter home

I've heard that before. Same with TX I believe.

The one thing I don't like is the fact that if you want acreage here, it won't happen unless you move into the boonies.

Seems like you can be somewhat near civilization and get a couple acres in a place like Texas...but I could be wrong on that. I just know from looking at listings in the area it seems to be a thing

i've not heard anything about exorbitant property tax in texas. the little research i did a while back didn't indicate that they have a property tax problem. hmmmm

Not a problem...just higher property taxes than CA

FLUFFYGERM posted...

come to Illinois if you want to pay $4500 a year in property tax for a tiny starter home

I've heard that before. Same with TX I believe.

The one thing I don't like is the fact that if you want acreage here, it won't happen unless you move into the boonies.

Seems like you can be somewhat near civilization and get a couple acres in a place like Texas...but I could be wrong on that. I just know from looking at listings in the area it seems to be a thing

But the taxes here are ridiculous and I just found out I owe another 300 bucks from 2014 taxes ugh

Sunshine is nice

I moved a hour north to double my house size for the same price. Longer commute, but worth it for my kid and wife.

Oh well, now I have 2 extra hours to listen to podcasts/ lectures.

Mmm California burritos

the 9th symphony certainly has lyrics :)

its one of the things that made it so revolutionary (though the 4th movement is my least favorite...)

Classical Liberal is a good designation as well but the left gets made when you use that term for some reason

Small government republican

Not like the fake ass people who call themselves small government champs until it doesn't suit them

Individualism

Asherlee10 posted...

Different schools of thought in terms of philosophical morality like Utilitarianism.

I think Utilitarianism is a decent start but it just doesn't seem feasible to me that we could even calculate the balance needed for it.

To the people that say "oh I just know what is right and what is wrong" - Obviously you're being impacted by cultural norms on this...many of which do in fact stem from a Judeo Christian sense of morality.

The question to me is whether or not the culture evolved in a darwinian sense (to me it seems likely considering cultures that do not produce morals that promote long term success would....not be successful in the long term) which is why I think an equilibrated state (a la Piaget) is a good way to think about it.

Jordan Peterson makes a fun case for a Piagetian model of morality

Basically acting in a way that allows for iterable games across time and across social strata let us evolve our morality

starting to get my time to a decent level. Still takes about a minute and a half

My coworker hovers around 30 seconds...but he uses a different method

DevsBro posted...

Nah. I decided a long time ago if I was ever going to solve it, ilI would solve it myself instead of looking up someone else's general solution (algorithms).

I did start writing a program to solve them but I never finished it.

Is it even possible to solve without using algorithms? or do you mean create your own

Imagine getting this close and having this happen

tote_all posted...

How are options 2 and 3 different?

Because even if you have the algorithms in front of you, they are situational and on the first couple of tries it tends to be frustrating to get it down.

SpiralDrift posted...

Yep. I can also solve the 4x4x4 and the Square-One but I'd probably have to look at the algorithms for those again since it's been a while.

I tried the Megaminx once without looking at the algorithms and didn't get very far. It's still on my bucket list.

Saw a dude with a 9x9x9 and I was like...man...

It is very satisfying once you get it down...only tried a 3x3x3 so far though. Are they pretty different for the 4x4x4?

Recently buckled down and memorized the algorithms so I can do it decently fast (probably 2-3 minutes)

Perfect...states should be able to determine things like this. Same with pot etc

if you came across another astronut, is there enough surface tension to smack it and push yourself backwards?

probably depends on the viscosity tbh

imagine being in a semen filled death spiral

Asherlee10 posted...

Minute posted...

When you nut in space, it pushes you backwards.

Has someone done the physics on this? I'm not sure that the propulsion of the semen is enough to move a 200 pound man, but what the fuck do I know?

I had a recent one that I'm sure could get me to Mars in 10 months. But then again I have been sex deprived for the past 3 months so there's a little more power iykwim

oh the humanity of it all

i smoked for over a decade about a pack a day

used the gum

the key is to only use the gum / patch / whatever as a last resort. You have to go as far as you can without anything.

Another trick I used was every time I had a craving I would make sure to note the fact that I didn't cave, and just that little bit of positive emotion from saying "no" helped me keep going

Now I can't imagine sucking down 20 cigs a day...its pretty nuts

Questionmarktarius posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

Romes187 posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

Romes187 posted...

How old are you?

I'm at 31, did the marriage thing and have a new baby.

I had great times partying but I ran outta steam. Spent the day today walking around the mall near our new place with the wife, baby, and my parents. Had a great time. Family really is one of the most important things.

It's tough work and a lot of stress sometimes, but all worth the struggle

I'm 27.

I don't want a family.

Not even a little bit.

That's game over imo, there's nothing left after that.

Well you're only 27. I didn't want one then either...

Any reason why you don't feel the whole family thing? Man, my daughter is 3 months old and it's pretty much the coolest thing ever being a dad and making her laugh.

Because I'll have no free time, no money, no chance to explore the world, some baby will control my life

That's why, the optimal time for spawning is about 18-24. Throw them the fuck out the house at 18, and you'll still be in your 40s, with plenty of time left to fuck around.

Waiting until your 30s to have kids, is just disastrous. Sure, you'll be financially better off, but your social life just ends, and you'll be somewhere around your mid 50s when free again.

Could be true. I'm glad I had my baby now instead of 24 because the maturity difference is pretty ridiculous. Plus it gave me time to work up to a position where I have greater flexibility and can work from home.

Social life definitely took a hit, but most of my friends all have kids anyways so it kind of works out because no one cares about being around the kids.

Definitely going to be 49 when she's 18 so there is that. Hoping to have made my nut by then so I can focus on my creative outlets.

clearaflagrantj posted...

Romes187 posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

Romes187 posted...

How old are you?

I'm at 31, did the marriage thing and have a new baby.

I had great times partying but I ran outta steam. Spent the day today walking around the mall near our new place with the wife, baby, and my parents. Had a great time. Family really is one of the most important things.

It's tough work and a lot of stress sometimes, but all worth the struggle

I'm 27.

I don't want a family.

Not even a little bit.

That's game over imo, there's nothing left after that.

Well you're only 27. I didn't want one then either...

Any reason why you don't feel the whole family thing? Man, my daughter is 3 months old and it's pretty much the coolest thing ever being a dad and making her laugh.

Because I'll have no free time, no money, no chance to explore the world, some baby will control my life

Hah true

The biggest mind fuck of all is how worth it the whole endeavor is. Tricky biology...

clearaflagrantj posted...

Romes187 posted...

How old are you?

I'm at 31, did the marriage thing and have a new baby.

I had great times partying but I ran outta steam. Spent the day today walking around the mall near our new place with the wife, baby, and my parents. Had a great time. Family really is one of the most important things.

It's tough work and a lot of stress sometimes, but all worth the struggle

I'm 27.

I don't want a family.

Not even a little bit.

That's game over imo, there's nothing left after that.

Well you're only 27. I didn't want one then either...

Any reason why you don't feel the whole family thing? Man, my daughter is 3 months old and it's pretty much the coolest thing ever being a dad and making her laugh.