Dr. Jordan B. Peterson

Joe Rogan Experience #958

Freedom of Speech or Political Correctness

Cathy Newman interview on Channel 4 (must watch)

with Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin

A Glitch in the Matrix (documentary)

tl;dw

Why is this guy suddenly so popular?

"

Xavderion wrote:

tl;dw

Why is this guy suddenly so popular?

A combination of his previous low simmer of popularity and the viral fallout from the Cathy Newman interview linked above.

I like his thoughts on the evolutionary incentives for religion and the metaphysical made real through metaphor. It provided a few of the missing pieces to support my instinctive skepticism of atheism and the decline of the traditional family.

These things are real, insofar as they are responses to real stimuli, and belief in them informed real decisions. Both things that are foundational to the structure of our society and likewise inform interactions between groups and environments (where interactions can be defined as, well, everything). I.e., Things worked a certain way; perhaps not optimally, but they worked. To extirpate tradition with an almost fanatical fervor (most Athiests I know are a counter culture eager to espouse their righteous truth over another’s—very progressive, very hypocritical) without due diligence in examining how these things functioned within the machine, will lead to a disfunctional machine.

To paraphrase a friend quoting Dr. Peterson*

”Would you agree that repairing a society is more complicated than repairing a helicopter?
Would you also agree it is a bad idea to repair a helicopter in flight?
Then why do we keep trying to do that with our society?”


In other words, we cannot hit the breaks on society. We cannot stop, land it, and and keep it grounded until we diagnose the problem. We have to diagnose things while they’re in motion, and implement solutions while they’re in motion. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t, but it does mean due diligence ought to be the singular most important thing in the process. This is why I particularly resent people advocating wanton change absent of careful examination and abundant in feels-good wanna-do’s.

Using metaphysical bullshit to justify being lazy is unfortunate.

?

"

CanHasPants wrote:

?

I think he's referring to your ''unproductive frivolous musings'' ... it made me lol but i'm easily pleased :D

Also ... ''sceptical of atheism'' ... how does that work ?


Edit : Thanks for the links OP, Channel 4 News is local to me but I missed this gem and is exactly why I don't waste any time watching this crap. My confirmation bias has just been refilled to optimum capacity :D

"

Ribbsey wrote:

I think he's referring to your ''unproductive frivolous musings'' ... it made me lol but i'm easily pleased :D

Except they are neither unproductive nor frivolous? I described pretty exactly what I believe to be a (the?) fundamental flaw of so called “progress.” We’re changing stuff all willy nilly without consideration for the things they are peripheral to, co-dependent of, or otherwise interacting with. If I am right, and there is an absence of due diligence in the relationship between science and politics, then it’s causing real harm to people. That is lazy.

I think it was just a tl;dr (irony, also lazy).

"

Ribbsey wrote:

Also ... ''sceptical of atheism'' ... how does that work ?

See above. Like, alright, abandon religion, that’s fine. But it was part of a system and that system maintained a sort of homeostasis, so what’re you going to replace it with so shit doesn’t get turbulent? Nothing? Shit’s turbulent? Huh.

I’m not suggesting atheism is to blame for our sociopolitical climate, but that it is symptomatic of what is. It’s only relevant to the conversation because it is relevant to the precipitating thoughts—the relationship between religion and evolution.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

I like his thoughts on the evolutionary incentives for religion and the metaphysical made real through metaphor. It provided a few of the missing pieces to support my instinctive skepticism of atheism and the decline of the traditional family.

These things are real, insofar as they are responses to real stimuli, and belief in them informed real decisions. Both things that are foundational to the structure of our society and likewise inform interactions between groups and environments (where interactions can be defined as, well, everything). I.e., Things worked a certain way; perhaps not optimally, but they worked. To extirpate tradition with an almost fanatical fervor (most Athiests I know are a counter culture eager to espouse their righteous truth over another’s—very progressive, very hypocritical) without due diligence in examining how these things functioned within the machine, will lead to a disfunctional machine.

Science takes reality as cause and belief as effect. The standard of good science is the reliability with which reality predicts belief.

Religions (or what Scott Adams calls "filters") take belief as cause and reality as effect. The standard of good religion is the reliability with which belief predicts reality.

Together, the yang of science and the yin of religion form the feedback loop of stimulus to reponse and back again. They are part of an inseparable whole, and the attempt to negate one always fails. Those who think they have, have replaced awareness with wilfull ignorance.

The fundamental failing of the particular form of atheism that is popular currently is the abandonment and even persecution of the recognition of the validity of religion (theism and religion are not synonymous), especially of Christian non-theological beliefs. They do not seek to cleanse time-honored and battle-proven ideologies from the disease of theism, but instead destroy them using the quarantine as justification. Modern atheists seek not to free Western civilization, but to purge it.

The popularity of Jordan Peterson should be encouraged, he is a pretty influential force in pushing people away from the far-right and far-left.