|
JustJeff88 posted:I despise identity politics Congratulations on being a open piece of poo poo?
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Given the pain 12 Rules for Life gave the I Don't Even Own a Television guys, and the fact that that's the shorter/more coherent of his two books, I'll pass on reading along. Don't worry, I'll be holding off until my own workload gets a bit lighter. I'll make sure you won't miss a single page/paragraph!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'll make sure you won't miss a single page/paragraph! What the hell did we ever do to you, jerk? 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:What the hell did we ever do to you, jerk? Don’t worry, friend, you’ll be there too, from the first page to the last. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
Wonder what our new best friend thinks of Roseanne's recent firing and why it's wrong for ABC to act in such an oppressive manner.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Wonder what our new best friend thinks of Roseanne's recent firing and why it's wrong for ABC to act in such an oppressive manner. I hope he goes full qanon about it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
Well she called a black lady a monkey so naturally this is a chilling indicator of the worrying trend of the anti-free-speech left, as much as I disagree with what Roseanne said. Now if she had called a cop a murdering pig, while my sympathies would lie with her, I would regretfully have to be a full-throated voice for the right nay the awesome responsibility of a TV network to curb unpopular speech .
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well she called a black lady a monkey so naturally this is a chilling indicator of the worrying trend of the anti-free-speech left, as much as I disagree with what Roseanne said. the president of ABC is also a black lady, so obvoiusly this is the Russkies trying to tear merika apart
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well she called a black lady a monkey so naturally this is a chilling indicator of the worrying trend of the anti-free-speech left, as much as I disagree with what Roseanne said. what happens if it's a black cop?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 15:07
|
|
|
Feinne posted:I'll take a look at a few more later tonight but what I read hid what I'd consider a well-reasoned point behind a bunch of pointlessly obscure language in part so he could add a bunch of reactionary dogwhistling in. It's possible his earlier work is different or that it's a specific coauthor who's part of the problem, though using way too many words to say very little is very much JP's style. Yeah, I'm in. Let's lit review it up. My co-author is late in returning a draft to me so I'm twiddling my thumbs/exploring Toronto and could be up for a research montage. Let's start with his earlier (~1998?) Stuff about alcohol and move chronologically? Would this be more appropriate for book barn (not a book) or SAL (sorta still a mock thread)?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
Maps of Meaning is his self-described magnum opus, so start with that. https://twitter.com/curaffairs/status/971859512742342656  
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Maps of Meaning is his self-described magnum opus, so start with that. Maps of Meaning is a popular press book published by Routledge.  I'll read whatever (come on, I made a bot out of jrodefeld's writing) but my interest was really in looking at his peer-reviewed work. WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 17:44 on May 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 17:42
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I'll read whatever (come on, I made a bot out of jrodefeld's writing) but my interest was really in looking at his peer-reviewed work. I think it's going to turn out to be a largely uneventful review.
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think it's going to turn out to be a largely uneventful review. Yeah, I was interested because Feinne said his academic work was shoddy and that wasn't my impression.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 18:09
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Yeah, I was interested because Feinne said his academic work was shoddy and that wasn't my impression. In virtually every profile of him he receives positive accounts of his work from other people in the field, and I've seen crimson articles reviewing him favourably as a teacher. But it could be worth doing nonetheless.
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:In virtually every profile of him he receives positive accounts of his work from other people in the field, and I've seen crimson articles reviewing him favourably as a teacher. But it could be worth doing nonetheless. Probably a lot like Linus Pauling: Excellent within his field, garbage if you ask him anything outside of it. Kind of like Dawkins.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Yeah, I was interested because Feinne said his academic work was shoddy and that wasn't my impression. Well he's done pretty typical work for his field, which from your account seems fine, and then he's published stuff like "A Psycho-Ontological Analysis of Genesis," which might be more entertaining to read for a thread
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:he's published stuff like "A Psycho-Ontological Analysis of Genesis," which might be more entertaining to read for a thread I disagree; I don't even think that Phill Collins is that good of a musician.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:Well he's done pretty typical work for his field, which from your account seems fine, and then he's published stuff like "A Psycho-Ontological Analysis of Genesis," which might be more entertaining to read for a thread  Oh goody.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:A Psycho-Ontological Analysis of Genesis quote:Individuals operating within the scientific paradigm presume that the world is made of matter. Although the perspective engendered by this presupposition is very powerful, it excludes value and subjective experience from its fundamental ontology. In addition, it provides very little guidance with regards to the fundamentals of ethical action. Individuals within the religious paradigm, by contrast, presume that the world is made out of what matters. From such a perspective, the phenomenon of meaning is the primary reality. This meaning is revealed both subjectively and objectively, and serves—under the appropriate conditions—as an unerring guide to ethical action. Aww, he thinks he's Kant.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Aww, he thinks he's Kant. ....what the gently caress is this metaphysics bullshit?!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:....what the gently caress is this metaphysics bullshit?! It's bad metaphysics, too. Obviously, what matters-full-stop is a function of what matters to people. People are made of matter, so mattering-full-stop is, at the bottom, a physical phenomenon. In any case, from the rest of the abstract, it looks like it's just a reading of Genesis as metaphor. Which is... fine, I guess? But ontology certainly doesn't enter into it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:It's bad metaphysics, too. Obviously, what matters-full-stop is a function of what matters to people. People are made of matter, so mattering-full-stop is, at the bottom, a physical phenomenon. In any case, from the rest of the abstract, it looks like it's just a reading of Genesis as metaphor. Which is... fine, I guess? But ontology certainly doesn't enter into it. Its fine to read into any of the bible as metaphor, but analyzing Genesis as "Religious people actually understand the makeup of the world" is straight up Answers in Genesis level hokum I wonder if he's done work for them.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Aww, he thinks he's Kant. Doesn't he hate Kant, though?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Doesn't he hate Kant, though? I have no idea. If he does, he probably hates a partially-understood version of Kant's moral stuff. But a lot of people who haven't read a lot of philosophy end accidentally up re-inventing a (bad) version of the Descartes-Hume-Berkeley-Kant early modern progression in metaphysics without really realizing it. Especially when they start contrasting 'objective' reality with 'subjective' or 'phenomenal.'
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:It's bad metaphysics, too. Obviously, what matters-full-stop is a function of what matters to people. People are made of matter, so mattering-full-stop is, at the bottom, a physical phenomenon. In any case, from the rest of the abstract, it looks like it's just a reading of Genesis as metaphor. Which is... fine, I guess? But ontology certainly doesn't enter into it. It would not surprise me if jorpo was a Cartesian dualist tbh
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
I do think a review of his peer-reviewed work would be interesting. I'm curious if it's actually any good, or if there's been some form of obfuscatory assumption of quality going on there, too. His other material is bad, and much of its badness is so deliberately obscurantist that I'm skeptical of the idea that his original tenure was deserved.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
Probably do that in the Peterson thread proper though. You might find more interest there too
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
quote:Individuals operating within the scientific paradigm presume that the world is made of matter.  oh my god this is terrible, like bumper sticker level "philosophy"though his popularity makes perfect sense given that, really
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:....what the gently caress is this metaphysics bullshit?! From my reading he's just taken the "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" bit from hamlet and then said that it means religious answers have more meaning. Which is daft in part because 1) Scientific things often make no overarching claims as to how to behave and 2) Scientific knowledge doesn't imply a lack of wonder or interest in the world.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:It would not surprise me if jorpo was a Cartesian dualist tbh Shame if he is, 'cause Elisabeth basically DESTROYED that idea back in 1643.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:From my reading he's just taken the "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" bit from hamlet and then said that it means religious answers have more meaning. That's just utterly vapid, though, like god drat.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I do think a review of his peer-reviewed work would be interesting. I'm curious if it's actually any good, or if there's been some form of obfuscatory assumption of quality going on there, too. His other material is bad, and much of its badness is so deliberately obscurantist that I'm skeptical of the idea that his original tenure was deserved. Fwiw one of Peterson's former colleagues at UoT wrote an article recently that makes it pretty clear that he essentially bullied the other professors into hiring JP and giving him a promotion and a raise. quote:We did not share research interests but it was clear that his work was solid. My colleagues on the search committee were skeptical — they felt he was too eccentric — but somehow I prevailed. (Several committee members now remind me that they agreed to hire him because they were “tired of hearing me shout over them.”) I pushed for him because he was a divergent thinker, self-educated in the humanities, intellectually flamboyant, bold, energetic and confident, bordering on arrogant. I thought he would bring a new excitement, along with new ideas, to our department.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:
My god, that's not even shallow.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:Fwiw one of Peterson's former colleagues at UoT wrote an article recently that makes it pretty clear that he essentially bullied the other professors into hiring JP and giving him a promotion and a raise. See, that's what I don't get. A hiring and promotion process that irregular, I promise with sufficient scrutiny it'd be possible to find an irregularity that would let you unwind it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Yeah, I was interested because Feinne said his academic work was shoddy and that wasn't my impression. He wasn't laughed out of
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:See, that's what I don't get. A hiring and promotion process that irregular, I promise with sufficient scrutiny it'd be possible to find an irregularity that would let you unwind it. While I am not necessarily against the idea of that, I doubt you'd find much. I don't say that because of some conceit that he was ever an actually good academic -- that ship has sailed ever since he threatened to hand over every liberal arts and humanities professor he worked with to his personal lynch mob -- but rather because of the kind of person he used to be. Everything we understand about Peterson follows after the incident in which he manufactured transphobia in order to gain partisan ascent within the Canadian right-wing press of the National Post (via Christie Blatchford) and later through The Rebel (via Ezra Levant). I used to follow Peterson rather closely before that time, when he was still a relative unknown. Back then it was never clear what exactly his own political beliefs were. I was only able to figure out he was "a conservative" after a long time of listening to and reading his stuff. Because he wasn't a partisan figure at this time, he was still willing to work with objective facts, even if he may have found them personally disagreeable. I remember a few times when he was the only one still speaking sympathetically about disadvantaged millennials around the time in which it was still fashionable in the media to disparage them. Every time he was asked if there was something mentally wrong about the supposed over-coddled generation who were refusing to grow up and start families, he would flatly respond with economic data about housing prices and the lingering effects of the Great Recession. (At the time, he was essentially the only one in the local media, no less the mainstream, who was doing so without being painted with hyperbole.) He used to do nice, little things like that all the time; even if doing so lost him the cred he obviously wanted from other conservatives. I thought it was cool, and actually looked to him quite a bit. That was back when I wanted to truly believe that, in the supposedly grand culture war between liberal and conservative thought, the other side would was not made of reprehensible monsters who were out to figuratively and literally slit my throat. That maybe, just maybe, the differences in thought were actually were running to some equilibrium point where one side could help make up the weaknesses of the other, and vice versa. I used Peterson as that "needed, alternate perspective" in that process. I suppose others must have too. But appearances can be deceiving. Given what we know of him now following his partisan ascension, it is clear that I was gravely naive to trust him. It is important to understand both why-and-how were duped as such. While that "conservative-whisperer" might have been how most saw it, it certainly wasn't how Peterson himself considered it. Those "little, nice things" were not done out of the kindness of his heart, but instead out of material necessity. In his Darwinian and hierarchical view of the world, he probably always viewed younger persons as utterly deserving of any contempt they would receive; a kind of authoritarian prime directive where all life must "earn" the right to continued existence, completely without regard for how hierarchies exist where actually "earning" that right is rendered effectively impossible. However, his personal views would've been put into conflict with the actual complexities of the world. He might have became a professor to secure his place as a much-vaunted male authority figure, but doing so required him to be constant -- and outnumbered -- contact with people his authoritarian thought demanded be forever unworthy. This meant actually acting upon his authoritarian impulses would've always put him at a disadvantage. So when he used to say that he totally understood how economic forces were pushing young people towards socialism, because they were demanded to perform a lot of very hard and stressful labour as part of their forced inclusion in the education system, without the necessary renumeration to support themselves independently, causing them to correctly deduce that the larger capitalist system had no place for them -- he didn't actually believe a single word of any one thing he had just said. There was never any actual sympathy or understanding for the plight of post-great-recession young people in him, even as an intellectual deduction; he was just making conversation in a way that wouldn't make awkward his ability to do a job which required him to be in the presence of economically disadvantaged young adults. Sophistry, thus, was the authoritarian salve to the imagined tyranny of so-called political correctness. The moment partisan ascent arrived, all of those little niceties were the first thing out of the window. It was no longer required of him to do them, so he stopped. He even went so far as purposefully make parody of some of his older arguments. (His one post-ascent video in which he goaded anti-muslim bigotry was very much at odds with the multiple pre-ascent times in which he sided with an imam on a few local broadcasts in order to clear up common misconceptions about Islam.) If you've observed this change, as I have, it's easy to deduce that actual truth never really mattered to him. He was just saying whatever pleased the crowd -- he just has a new crowd now, a crowd he obviously likes much better. It's for that reason why I don't think his earlier work will reveal any structural flaws which will demand the withdrawal of his tenure. Even at that time, he was an actor playing the part of a psychology professor, and he would've played that part well enough to pass performance. And he did, as the choice to go partisan was a choice he made himself, and not because any scientific falsifications were about to be uncovered. The majority of his earlier work regarding the psychologies of ancient mythologies is the type of stuff that isn't easily falsifiable, and his open reliance of biotruth-based pseudoscience regarding gender only picked up as time went on and he started to get more adventurous in being his "real" self, if indeed it is. Everything only reveals itself as sophistry with the gift of retrospect. I suppose it's possible I could be wrong and there would be a smoking gun somewhere in there. I only feel it necessary to explain this because I used to like him back before poo poo hit the fan and I've been particularly wounded by his fascist turn; but it is still important to understand how he was able to operate under the radar for so long. I had my own personal doubts about his theories, and silent troubles with them led me to wonder if many of them weren't an intellectual dead-end, but those were things I had to reconcile with what -- at the time -- seemed like obvious benefits. Religious school for elementary and secondary is weirdly common in Ontario, but due to various agreements as part of their operation, only the religious studies classes were designed by those school boards; literally every other subject matter was lifted wholesale from the public system -- including science, even with evolutionary biology as part of that package. This meant that, unlike in the US where religious schools are often unaccredited, graduates of religious schools in Canada were still able to enter secular university and college without trouble. However, the religious curriculum they came up with only ever served their own propagandistic purposes, leaving a lot of students with an anemic understanding of their own religious texts. The reason Peterson was able to "hook in" a lot of undergraduate students was because of this, as he would've been the very first person in their entire lives who could give an explanation of the first few chapters of Genesis that actually made a single degree of sense, unlike the Biblical literalism's "this nonsense happened, 100% true, no questions asked, keep your filthy questions to yourself" that they had gotten. Peterson's opening act was to give them a comprehensible answer to a question which had plagued them for their entire lives due to some weird quirks of the religious education system in this one specific part of the world. Following that, it would've only been natural to want to hear more; even if what was to follow was going to have some... problems. My own experience with Peterson is, in a way, not dissimilar to my experience libertarianism earlier on. When you start off, there is always this one topic, such as the economy or a particularly difficult sacred text, that you obviously understand is important to the way the world works. You don't understand it very well yet, but you can tell it is a thing you should be a little bit more concerned with because a lot of people you know acknowledge it and make mention of it from time to time. But it's also very daunting, and your immediate impulse is to just write it off as a thing for other people to deal with since you don't see a good way in to it. Eventually, some guy comes around and explains it in a way which seems simple enough that a teenage you can understand it perfectly well. "It's the invisible hand of the marketplace allocating resources!" or "It's a way of describing the realization of consciousness, and it's described in this way because of repressed evolutionary memory!" And it all seems well and good. Maybe you leave it there, and go on to the other things out there that interested you personally much more, and keep that simplified explanation in the back of your head to the point where you eventually forget where it came from and it just becomes a fact about the world. Though if you're particularly inquisitive sort -- an unfortunate quality -- you eventually want to know more about it. You dive in and eventually discover that the supposedly-simple thing has a few issues with it; issues that imply some... rather not too happy things. Things that, if followed through to their logical conclusion, leads to a worldly system which disenfranchises a great many people, perhaps even yourself included. This can't be right. You wonder if you're missing something. Surely something this common and widely accepted can't have this many underlying problems with it. You try to ask the nice-sounding expert who obviously seems to have a better handle on this of it is really like that. You expect an answer which would be equally as straightforward as the original concept, but you don't get one. The expert just gives you the runaround. You're not really satisfied. You begin to wonder if all those things about you saw as problems, the other guy thought were were actually good things. Surely it can't be that. In the Just World that the original precept implied, everything should turn out for the better just naturally, including this, right? ... but eventually, one way or another, you somehow end up with a knife in your back.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Yeah, I was interested because Feinne said his academic work was shoddy and that wasn't my impression. Going to be honest part of it is possibly that the specific one I really focused on was https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221752816_Psychological_Entropy_A_Framework_for_Understanding_Uncertainty-Related_Anxiety because it came up in another thread. I've got two engineering degrees and get triggered as gently caress by the phrase 'psychological entropy' and don't entirely agree with his analogy that leads to those words to describe a concept in what is otherwise a reasonably solid paper (again allowing that there's some dogwhistle political stuff in it). Meanwhile for example his early work with the effects of alcohol seems entirely unobjectionable.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 03:20
|
|
|
Morroque posted:While I am not necessarily against the idea of that, I doubt you'd find much. I don't say that because of some conceit that he was ever an actually good academic -- that ship has sailed ever since he threatened to hand over every liberal arts and humanities professor he worked with to his personal lynch mob -- but rather because of the kind of person he used to be. Sir, this is an arby's drive through.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Caros posted:Sir, this is an arby's drive through. Inappropriate use of subforum catchphrase in parent forum, five minute penalty. *pantomime's penalized offense elaborately* *is beaten to death by angry Flyers fans*
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 04:17
|
|