Current Events > Jordan Peterson on JRE right now!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Romes187 posted...

Have you read the actual chapter though? It's really about hierarchies...not about standing up straight

---

Antifar posted...

Rule 10: be precise in your speech.

Jordan's lectures never follows this rule.
---

uh

okay ill spell it out for you

I don't agree with any power pose thing or that standing up straight makes you more dominant or whatever.

I do agree that hierarchies are biologically based and not societal constructs.

myzz7 posted...

Antifar posted...

Rule 10: be precise in your speech.

Jordan's lectures never follows this rule.

Did you read my post regarding this one? Thoughts?

Romes187 posted...

uh

okay ill spell it out for you

I don't agree with any power pose thing or that standing up straight makes you more dominant or whatever.

I do agree that hierarchies are biologically based and not societal constructs.

Okay, so you agree that he was bullshitting a bit in the chapter. Good chat. That was the point. Proud asked me what things he has said are incorrect, this is one of them.
---

COVxy posted...

Romes187 posted...

uh

okay ill spell it out for you

I don't agree with any power pose thing or that standing up straight makes you more dominant or whatever.

I do agree that hierarchies are biologically based and not societal constructs.

Okay, so you agree that he was bullshitting a bit in the chapter. Good chat. That was the point. Proud asked me what things he has said are incorrect, this is one of them.

But did you actually read the chapter? Like...the point of it wasn't that...and I probably disagree with peterson like 20% of the time. It would be weird if I agreed with him always. And I tried to state that in the beginning of this topic but you clearly didn't follow so thats cool.

I just don't understand why you are so scared to actually read the book if you want to comment on it. You're a science guy right? Could you imagine any of the enlightenment thinkers commenting on shit they never actually read? You are doing a disservice to yourself by not even giving the text a chance.

It's sad.

Romes187 posted...

Did you read my post regarding this one? Thoughts?

what post
---

Romes187 posted...

Antifar posted...
Rule 10: be precise in your speech.

Yeah so when I saw him live last week he discussed this one and related it more to goal setting because, according to him, the literature states that our perceptions are driven by our goal systems. Ergo, if you are not precise with what your goals are, your perceptions will not align with that.

I doubt anyone disagrees that he is often vague considering some of the shit he talks about is pretty abstract

The stand up straight point is the same as the pet the cat point.

It isn't necessarily literal. It just means have a certain level of readiness to engage with life and its hardships. Don't have a defeatist attitude

I don't have to read the chapter to know he made those claims because he confirms it himself on video...

I'm not gonna buy a self help book from the anti-SJW guru in order to confirm a claim exists when I already know it is there because the author himself says so.
---

_RETS_ posted...

The stand up straight point is the same as the pet the cat point.

It isn't necessarily literal. It just means have a certain level of readiness to engage with life and its hardships. Don't have a defeatist attitude

Except in the video I posted he confirms that it was literal.
---

COVxy posted...

I don't have to read the chapter to know he made those claims because he confirms it himself on video...

I'm not gonna buy a self help book from the anti-SJW guru in order to confirm a claim exists when I already know it is there because the author himself says so.

Man...I just don't know what else to even say to you then. You don't want to have a conversation. You want to be right.

What a shame.

COVxy posted...

You can literally say anything and it'll be just as valid as anything else, given some assumptions.

Wtf is this nonsense
---

He's coming through my city later this month.

I'd be more interested to see him if Sam Harris was coming too.

Also, I'm wayyyyyyyy behind on my JRE 'casts since he does like 20 a week. I'll make this the next one I check out though, since it looks like Joe questions him on the societally enforced monogamy comment he made a while back.
---

@COVxy

I don't think the ideas behind collective unconscious and archetypes are wrong.

I mean, any personality psychology will point to the fact that most people fall under some kind of basic type, and isn't he also a personality psychologist? Evidence for the collective unconscious exists too.

Empirical science is great, but that doesn't mean anything that is not strictly verified or falsifiable cannot be true.
---

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

The stand up straight point is the same as the pet the cat point.

It isn't necessarily literal. It just means have a certain level of readiness to engage with life and its hardships. Don't have a defeatist attitude

Except in the video I posted he confirms that it was literal.

I know. He is using a literal action to illustrate a larger point. It is about adopting a posture of readiness. Physically, sure, but more importantly in attitude and worldview.

Even taking it literally, standing with a posture of attentiveness and confidence alters the way the world perceives and responds to you. It increases your baseline of respect for a person of they seem more confident in their demeanor and convictions.

Romes187 posted...

COVxy posted...

I don't have to read the chapter to know he made those claims because he confirms it himself on video...

I'm not gonna buy a self help book from the anti-SJW guru in order to confirm a claim exists when I already know it is there because the author himself says so.

Man...I just don't know what else to even say to you then. You don't want to have a conversation. You want to be right.

What a shame.

It's not that I want to be right. I am right, about this.

He grounds his political stance in scientism and then when the scientism is struck down due to poor scientific reasoning, people say "well that wasn't the point, the point was [x political conclusion]"

I don't give a shit if you hold some political opinion. Nobody will be able to argue either way because it is just that, opinion. Like, we can both agree that there are both biological and social hierarchies. The identification of which are which in human society is just pure speculation and opinion. You care about that latter point though. And those latter points of his often rest their authority on inappropriate scientific reasoning.

I wouldn't give a shit if he just said "hey, these are my political opinions". But he doesn't. He tries to ground them in empiricism. But the argumentation is often faulty and when you attack that peterson fans accuse you of missing the point and we're back at the beginning again...
---

Stewman_Magoo posted...

He's coming through my city later this month.

I'd be more interested to see him if Sam Harris was coming too.

Also, I'm wayyyyyyyy behind on my JRE 'casts since he does like 20 a week. I'll make this the next one I check out though, since it looks like Joe questions him on the societally enforced monogamy comment he made a while back.

Yeah Joe says that its on the Incels to better themselves, not to simply create a society that puts high value on monogamy.

Peterson said he doesn't disagree (I mean, much of his youtube lectures concern this point) but that a society that does not put a high value on monogamy will degenerate into violence because a few men will get all the women

COVxy posted...

Romes187 posted...

COVxy posted...

I don't have to read the chapter to know he made those claims because he confirms it himself on video...

I'm not gonna buy a self help book from the anti-SJW guru in order to confirm a claim exists when I already know it is there because the author himself says so.

Man...I just don't know what else to even say to you then. You don't want to have a conversation. You want to be right.

What a shame.

It's not that I want to be right. I am right, about this.

He grounds his political stance in scientism and then when the scientism is struck down due to poor scientific reasoning, people say "well that wasn't the point, the point was [x political conclusion]"

I don't give a shit if you hold some political opinion. Nobody will be able to argue either way because it is just that, opinion. Like, we can both agree that there are both biological and social hierarchies. The identification of which are which in human society is just pure speculation and opinion. You care about that latter point though. And those latter points of his often rest their authority on inappropriate scientific reasoning.

I wouldn't give a shit if he just said "hey, these are my political opinions". But he doesn't. He tries to ground them in empiricism. But the argumentation is often faulty and when you attack that peterson fans accuse you of missing the point and we're back at the beginning again...

Are you saying the literature is unclear about whether hierarchies are biological? Because that is his scientific claim

and how is that a political opinion

Romes187 posted...

Are you saying the literature is unclear about whether hierarchies are biological? Because that is his scientific claim

You don't care if hierarchies CAN be biological:
COVxy posted...

Like, we can both agree that there are both biological and social hierarchies.

You care about specific instances of hierarchies in humans, and whether they are biological. In which case, there is never going to be any convincing evidence either way.
---

Romes187 posted...

I doubt anyone disagrees that he is often vague considering some of the shit he talks about is pretty abstract

Vagueness is a product of the conflicting ideas he holds and his unwillingness to identify the contradictions in which he evades with fustian dialogue. Listen to him talk in his psychology lectures in which he is comfortable and very direct about his theories and conclusions. He's in his element; he knows what he is talking about. Now compare it to the clashing religious, nietzsche, and eastern mysticism monologues or interviews he has. He muddles through it and is at time obtuse and other times overbearing in his certainty of isolated elements of one particular theory. Jung this and religion that and individualism here and worship of the subconscious flow mode here and life is suffering but its not nihilism and all that other crap he mushes into vague terms.

Jordan is mess when trying to play the philosopher.
---

Romes187 posted...

Peterson said he doesn't disagree (I mean, much of his youtube lectures concern this point) but that a society that does not put a high value on monogamy will degenerate into violence because a few men will get all the women

Women were more likely to go after high-status men before the sexual revolution than today:
https://twitter.com/OsitaNwanevu/status/997484128667951104
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

@COVxy

I don't think the ideas behind collective unconscious and archetypes are wrong.

I mean, any personality psychology will point to the fact that most people fall under some kind of basic type, and isn't he also a personality psychologist? Evidence for the collective unconscious exists too.

Empirical science is great, but that doesn't mean anything that is not strictly verified or falsifiable cannot be true.

You may not think they are wrong, but there is no way to know either way. That is why they are unscientific. There is no "evidence" for the collective unconscious. And no factor analysis of personality has ever yielded Jungian archetypes.
---

myzz7 posted...

Vagueness is a product of the conflicting ideas he holds and his unwillingness to identify the contradictions in which he evades with fustian dialogue. Listen to him talk in his psychology lectures in which he is comfortable and very direct about his theories and conclusions. He's in his element; he knows what he is talking about. Now compare it to the clashing religious, nietzsche, and eastern mysticism monologues or interviews he has. He muddles through it and is at time obtuse and other times overbearing in his certainty of isolated elements of one particular theory. Jung this and religion that and individualism here and worship of the subconscious flow mode here and life is suffering but its not nihilism and all that other crap he mushes into vague terms.

Jordan is mess when trying to play the philosopher.

Who can speak about Nietzsche, religion, and mysticism without using vague terms?....

Romes187 posted...

Who can speak about Nietzsche, religion, and mysticism without using vague terms?....

They don't have to. They just need to stop claiming scientific grounds for their viewpoints.
---

COVxy posted...

Romes187 posted...

Who can speak about Nietzsche, religion, and mysticism without using vague terms?....

They don't have to. They just need to stop claiming scientific grounds for their viewpoints.

I don't think he's ever stated his claims on mysticism and religion were based in science...

In fact he states the opposite. Which is why he uses the metaphysical language so often

It's also why he and Sam Harris disagree on some fundamentals

Here's the biggest issue when it comes to criticizing Jordan Peterson (and I would say it's more something to levy against his fans, although I'm sure he himself has no issue with this as well).

His fans want his critics to address Jordan Peterson's arguments themselves. This is, of course, totally fair and what should obviously be the idea. What isn't fair, however, is that when criticism is brought up, a different version of the argument from somewhere else in his prolific history is brought up to change the argument being criticized. "He said this, but he actually meant that." "Oh, he said that, but he actually meant this."

His arguments can't be criticized if all criticism is just given the run around. That's why it's always on the person giving their argument to be clear. Each and every time. Everyone makes mistakes, sure. And some degree of correcting and verifying what you've said is expected. But with Jordan Peterson and his fans, it seems more like a defense mechanism. It's like a means to combat criticism by making the arguments just malleable enough that different versions can be propped up as necessary to circumvent critique.

And that's why the standard is there. It's on the speaker to be clear and precise, not on the audience to hunt for the best version of an argument the person across them is making.

Antifar posted...

Romes187 posted...

Peterson said he doesn't disagree (I mean, much of his youtube lectures concern this point) but that a society that does not put a high value on monogamy will degenerate into violence because a few men will get all the women

Women were more likely to go after high-status men before the sexual revolution than today:
https://twitter.com/OsitaNwanevu/status/997484128667951104

Ah interesting. Still wonder how that would play out in a polygamous culture

but also note that our culture does enforce monogamy...excuse me if the study takes that all into account. I'm getting ready for a big meeting and don't have time to look it over right now

Antifar posted...

Peterson's shtick is couching inflammatory statements in mountains of obfuscation, and then crying foul when critics rightly note the wild s*** that comes out of his mouth. The rallying cries of his fans downplay the only noteworthy things he says: "he doesn't mean that literally," "you need to watch the full two hour lecture," "he's just asking questions, that's not something he believes."

This was posted in another topic but man does it hold true here. Every discussion about Peterson becomes a second-order debate, not about his ideas, but about whether his critics are unfair to him by not reading his whole book and watching every two-hour Youtube video he's ever put out.

Peterson's fans love him because finally someone who looks like they do can claim to be an aggrieved victim.
---

Romes187 posted...

I don't think he's ever stated his claims on mysticism and religion were based in science...

In fact he states the opposite. Which is why he uses the metaphysical language so often

It's also why he and Sam Harris disagree on some fundamentals

I mean, I agree, he talks about the metaphysical, in fact the large majority of the "psychology" he speaks about is metaphysical. The issue is that this isn't really psychology, not in the way that psychology exists today. And so he uses his authority as a clinical psychologist to manipulate people into thinking that his arguments have heavy weight, I mean, he is a heavily prolific psychologist after all!

But his arguments are just philosophy, completely divorced from his expertise.
---

Intro2Logic posted...

Antifar posted...

Peterson's shtick is couching inflammatory statements in mountains of obfuscation, and then crying foul when critics rightly note the wild s*** that comes out of his mouth. The rallying cries of his fans downplay the only noteworthy things he says: "he doesn't mean that literally," "you need to watch the full two hour lecture," "he's just asking questions, that's not something he believes."

This was posted in another topic but man does it hold true here. Every discussion about Peterson becomes a second-order debate, not about his ideas, but about whether his critics are unfair to him by not reading his whole book and watching every two-hour Youtube video he's ever put out.

Peterson's fans love him because finally someone who looks like they do can claim to be an aggrieved victim.

No I just like the ideas and actually want to discuss them. But when a chapter about the biological basis of hierarchies devolves into a discussion about power posing it irks me.

We really should get off rule #1 anyways...there are 11 more :)

and a much better book called Maps of Meaning that would be fun to talk about

Dragonblade01 posted...

Here's the biggest issue when it comes to criticizing Jordan Peterson (and I would say it's more something to levy against his fans, although I'm sure he himself has no issue with this as well).

His fans want his critics to address Jordan Peterson's arguments themselves. This is, of course, totally fair and what should obviously be the idea. What isn't fair, however, is that when criticism is brought up, a different version of the argument from somewhere else in his prolific history is brought up to change the argument being criticized. "He said this, but he actually meant that." "Oh, he said that, but he actually meant this."

His arguments can't be criticized if all criticism is just given the run around. That's why it's always on the person giving their argument to be clear. Each and every time. Everyone makes mistakes, sure. And some degree of correcting and verifying what you've said is expected. But with Jordan Peterson and his fans, it seems more like a defense mechanism. It's like a means to combat criticism by making the arguments just malleable enough that different versions can be propped up as necessary to circumvent critique.

And that's why the standard is there. It's on the speaker to be clear and precise, not on the audience to hunt for the best version of an argument the person across them is making.

This is true, but he also answers questions and explores points in a very layered way, for better or worse. It is easy to misinterpret what he is saying if you don't have the patience to follow what he is saying. He is long winded to a fault, but that's just how he articulates his points. A lot of his points are Cathy Newman'd. Majority Report's recent attempted "take down" of his view on homosexuals raising kids falls into this trap. Now I am inclined to believe they are purposely misrepresenting him to discredit him and his fan base, but a lot of his critics don't do it intentionally. Rather they don't have the patience or desire (note I'm not saying they lack the intellect) to follow along with what he is saying.

Regarding the homosexuality video, he made a very well-reasoned argument that was in no way against homosexuals, but MR got hung up on him beginning his answer by talking about single parenthood as a basis for where his answer would go. But Majority Report kept falsely claiming he was equating homosexual couples raising kids with single parent households and he wasn't at all.

COVxy posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

@COVxy

I don't think the ideas behind collective unconscious and archetypes are wrong.

I mean, any personality psychology will point to the fact that most people fall under some kind of basic type, and isn't he also a personality psychologist? Evidence for the collective unconscious exists too.

Empirical science is great, but that doesn't mean anything that is not strictly verified or falsifiable cannot be true.

You may not think they are wrong, but there is no way to know either way. That is why they are unscientific. There is no "evidence" for the collective unconscious. And no factor analysis of personality has ever yielded Jungian archetypes.

What would constitute evidence in your opinion? Actually, I'd be interested in hearing what you think a collective unconscious actually means
---

_RETS_ posted...

It is easy to misinterpret what he is saying if you don't have the patience to follow what he is saying.

So much so that he misunderstands his own chapter and talks literally about it, despite it all being metaphorical:

_RETS_ posted...

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

The stand up straight point is the same as the pet the cat point.

It isn't necessarily literal. It just means have a certain level of readiness to engage with life and its hardships. Don't have a defeatist attitude

Except in the video I posted he confirms that it was literal.

I know. He is using a literal action to illustrate a larger point. It is about adopting a posture of readiness. Physically, sure, but more importantly in attitude and worldview.

Even taking it literally, standing with a posture of attentiveness and confidence alters the way the world perceives and responds to you. It increases your baseline of respect for a person of they seem more confident in their demeanor and convictions.

Also, that last part isn't empirically supported, so again the claim is inappropriate.
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

What would constitute evidence in your opinion?

I bring a random sample of subjects into the lab, manipulate factor x, get result y, which supports theory z. The test was set up so that it was possible to get result t, and result t would have contradicted theory z.
---

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

It is easy to misinterpret what he is saying if you don't have the patience to follow what he is saying.

So much so that he misunderstands his own chapter and talks literally about it, despite it all being metaphorical:

_RETS_ posted...

COVxy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

The stand up straight point is the same as the pet the cat point.

It isn't necessarily literal. It just means have a certain level of readiness to engage with life and its hardships. Don't have a defeatist attitude

Except in the video I posted he confirms that it was literal.

I know. He is using a literal action to illustrate a larger point. It is about adopting a posture of readiness. Physically, sure, but more importantly in attitude and worldview.

Even taking it literally, standing with a posture of attentiveness and confidence alters the way the world perceives and responds to you. It increases your baseline of respect for a person of they seem more confident in their demeanor and convictions.

Also, that last part isn't empirically supported, so again the claim is inappropriate.

I said it isn't necessarily literal, when I should have said it isn't exclusively literal. It is using a literal action to illustrate an overall non-literal point.

And it is supported by the mere fact that if you are walking down the street, you will have a much less favorable view of some dude walking with his eyes on the ground, hunched over, looking weak than one standing upright ready to engage with the world around him. You will instinctively have higher regard of the one not walking around like a limp dong.

The opposite of that isn't empirically supported either, unless you can provide that evidence. So we then go back to man nature and what most people will admit in how they perceive others based only on posture and confidence.

Romes187 posted...

No I just like the ideas and actually want to discuss them. But when a chapter about the biological basis of hierarchies devolves into a discussion about power posing it irks me.

We really should get off rule #1 anyways...there are 11 more :)

and a much better book called Maps of Meaning that would be fun to talk about

I brought JPs book. the 12 rules for life one. i'll read it soon. overall i like JP in contrast the to oppressive marxists and SJWs he struck out against. the universities are in definite decline and the culture of inverted tolerance, hatred, and envy needed a voice like JP to speak out against it. him and others. as of his recent work in the past year or 2 im insure of how positive of an influence he is when is detrimentally wrong in offering life guidance outside his psychologist field.
---

Romes187 posted...

Stewman_Magoo posted...

He's coming through my city later this month.

I'd be more interested to see him if Sam Harris was coming too.

Also, I'm wayyyyyyyy behind on my JRE 'casts since he does like 20 a week. I'll make this the next one I check out though, since it looks like Joe questions him on the societally enforced monogamy comment he made a while back.

Yeah Joe says that its on the Incels to better themselves, not to simply create a society that puts high value on monogamy.

Peterson said he doesn't disagree (I mean, much of his youtube lectures concern this point) but that a society that does not put a high value on monogamy will degenerate into violence because a few men will get all the women

Despite the decline in people believing in some kind of religion, society still puts a large focus on monogamy. In fact, I think that's the biggest problem.

How many times have your parents/friends asked you when you were going to marry your significant other when you were dating? When relationships go south and you enter a new one, it doesn't take long for the cycle of questions to begin again.

People that have a hard time finding relationships see this happen with their friends / siblings and wonder why they can't find anyone.

These incels are all looking for someone to marry. The longer they go without being in a relationship, the more they see society asking couples these questions and the more they seethe over their inability to find someone they can possibly marry.

If society didn't put so much focus on couples getting married, maybe they wouldn't have this false stigma that people HAVE to be married in order to be successful in life and can focus on relationships/ interactions that make them happy instead.
---

myzz7 posted...

Romes187 posted...

No I just like the ideas and actually want to discuss them. But when a chapter about the biological basis of hierarchies devolves into a discussion about power posing it irks me.

We really should get off rule #1 anyways...there are 11 more :)

and a much better book called Maps of Meaning that would be fun to talk about

I brought JPs book. the 12 rules for life one. i'll read it soon. overall i like JP in contrast the to oppressive marxists and SJWs he struck out against. the universities are in definite decline and the culture of inverted tolerance, hatred, and envy needed a voice like JP to speak out against it. him and others. as of his recent work in the past year or 2 im insure of how positive of an influence he is when is detrimentally wrong in offering life guidance outside his psychologist field.

cool. I mostly try to stay away from the political shit he gets into just because I think his lectures on religion and literature and mythology are the real interesting chunks that he goes over. Maps of Meaning hits on it in the second half of the book (1st half is nearly all neuroscience).

But to me the idea that sexual selection is based off of hierarchies, and the oral tradition and stories we told for thousands of years are distillations of people ascending said hierarchies, and that we have evolved based on those "ways of being" (for lack of a better term) strikes me as interesting (by the way that would be Peterson's claim on where the archetype comes from...basically its a Meme that is so infectious that we evolve to it)

thats the short version anyways

Stewman_Magoo posted...

Romes187 posted...

Stewman_Magoo posted...

He's coming through my city later this month.

I'd be more interested to see him if Sam Harris was coming too.

Also, I'm wayyyyyyyy behind on my JRE 'casts since he does like 20 a week. I'll make this the next one I check out though, since it looks like Joe questions him on the societally enforced monogamy comment he made a while back.

Yeah Joe says that its on the Incels to better themselves, not to simply create a society that puts high value on monogamy.

Peterson said he doesn't disagree (I mean, much of his youtube lectures concern this point) but that a society that does not put a high value on monogamy will degenerate into violence because a few men will get all the women

Despite the decline in people believing in some kind of religion, society still puts a large focus on monogamy. In fact, I think that's the biggest problem.

How many times have your parents/friends asked you when you were going to marry your significant other when you were dating? When relationships go south and you enter a new one, it doesn't take long for the cycle of questions to begin again.

People that have a hard time finding relationships see this happen with their friends / siblings and wonder why they can't find anyone.

These incels are all looking for someone to marry. The longer they go without being in a relationship, the more they see society asking couples these questions and the more they seethe over their inability to find someone they can possibly marry.

If society didn't put so much focus on couples getting married, maybe they wouldn't have this false stigma that people HAVE to be married in order to be successful in life and can focus on relationships/ interactions that make them happy instead.

Definitely could be. I mean, I'm way happier married than I was when I was single. But that could be due to social norms...be interesting to see how I feel about it if I grew up in a different age. But thats impossible.

_RETS_ posted...

I said it isn't necessarily literal, when I should have said it isn't exclusively literal. It is using a literal action to illustrate an overall non-literal point.

That doesn't make any sense within this context.
---

COVxy posted...

Never in my life have I ever seen so many people defending psychodynamic theory. This is the issue with Peterson.

Like, people who would have otherwise said "psychology is a pseudoscience" no more than a couple of years ago are now flocking to an old form of psychology that was indeed pseudoscience.

I thought pschodynamic theory is pretty much accepted. And it's pretty obvious that ones up-bringing can shape a personality. That's really the jist of it. And the actual application of the theory is so little of what Peterson actually talks about. I've so far watched two or three hour long interviews and he's never mentioned the ego, super ego, etc etc.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Hey COVxy when are you going to get back to your lab work? You've been spending so many hours on CE lately, surely your lab must be collapsing into a bread line by now.

Why not work and in your spare time publish a refutation of Jordan Peterson so you can snag some of his sweet sweet Patreon money?

I like how you say this like it's a given that COVxy believes the Patreon game is a meritocracy even though we all know he surely does not
---

F1areaGaman posted...

I thought pschodynamic theory is pretty much accepted.

Pretty much universally regarded as the pseudoscience history of psychology.
---

Romes187 posted...

Is this how our "academics" work? They don't read anything and act like they are an expert on the literature? You're a PhD right? How would you feel if someone wrote a paper critiquing another paper without reading the damn thing? I can't understand why you are so scared to read the chapter...or at the very least not speak about things you haven't read. It is mind boggling but go ahead and take that one video where he is talking about another side of the rule and completely negate the actual words that he wrote down.

Dude, if Peterson tried to publish a paper where he would justify being completely wrong with "that's not the point I'm making", it would get rejected super hard and would probably hurt his reputation.
---

COVxy posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

What would constitute evidence in your opinion?

I bring a random sample of subjects into the lab, manipulate factor x, get result y, which supports theory z. The test was set up so that it was possible to get result t, and result t would have contradicted theory z.

so if someone came up with an experiment that might at least confirm/verify the appearance collective consciousness, would you be open to accepting it? at least enough that you might get to the point of wanting to falsify it?

edit: collective unconscious
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

so if someone came up with an experiment that might at least confirm/verify the appearance collective consciousness, would you be open to accepting it? at least enough that you might get to the point of wanting to falsify it?

Of course.
---

COVxy posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

so if someone came up with an experiment that might at least confirm/verify the appearance collective consciousness, would you be open to accepting it? at least enough that you might get to the point of wanting to falsify it?

Of course.

Would you say that the simultaneous discovery of calculus by Newton and Leibniz is at least one reason to accept that the progression of enlightenment thought furnished pre-established conclusions that would have been evident to different people unaware of each other's works? sorry if that's a bit unclear

this might make it clearer: an event like the englightment puts certain ideas into people's heads, and those ideas have logical consequences. I would say it's not out of the question to say that collective unconscious is just the set of things people are likely to believe given the intellectual ferment of whatever historical period they are in. this is not 100% what Jung's theory is, but I think it is a more reasonable account that may or may not be testable.

another example is pervasive anxiety in postmodernity
---