tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post5300005788667358584..comments2024-03-26T06:17:49.527-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: The Jordan Peterson PrincipleStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-87098492480091906922021-11-10T16:05:59.034-08:002021-11-10T16:05:59.034-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-4518594608550409622021-11-09T13:32:42.495-08:002021-11-09T13:32:42.495-08:00A small disagreement. Identifying the Feminine wi...A small disagreement. Identifying the Feminine with Chaos is not such a stretch. The conventional myth that women bring civilization into being by taming men is likely wrong. Men bring civilization into being in order to organize the chaos that results from untamed hypergamy, as we have experienced in the last half century since the introduction of feminism and the Pill.Christopher Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396671757183163171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-26689075999946053362021-11-09T11:33:14.237-08:002021-11-09T11:33:14.237-08:00This says so much more about you than it does abou...This says so much more about you than it does about Peterson. Why attack the man? Simple, to destroy him so he won't say what you don't want heard. Why not attack, dispute, argue, what he has said in a way that changes minds? Well, typically the reason is that you cannot because if you could clearly that would be far more effective than an ad hominem attack. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-12613559707536626722021-11-09T10:23:35.349-08:002021-11-09T10:23:35.349-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-58083512819809624532021-11-09T08:36:12.598-08:002021-11-09T08:36:12.598-08:00#1: I trust nothing, NOTHING, from the NYT.
&quo...#1: I trust nothing, NOTHING, from the NYT.<br /><br />"Only the most inveterate pagan would suggest otherwise. And, to say that men should impose themselves on chaotic females is nutty. And yes, I do know that Peterson will declare that he refuses to take any responsibility for the implications of his daffy ideas." So, he's an admitted "bomb-thrower"...Sam L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00996809377798862214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-56864339431869667692021-11-09T08:27:56.406-08:002021-11-09T08:27:56.406-08:00Agree on Peterson. You should read Vox Day's b...Agree on Peterson. You should read Vox Day's book, "Jordanetics." He exposes Peterson regularly on his site: https://voxday.net/?s=jordan+petersonDavid Spencenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-37851225415240988722021-11-09T07:01:03.722-08:002021-11-09T07:01:03.722-08:00A human is a story-telling animal. All of our perc...<b>A human is a story-telling animal</b>. All of our perceptions are based upon narratives that are shortcuts to understanding reality, in order to better survive it.<br /><br />How could it be otherwise? We are the descendants of people who, when they saw something move in the bush ahead of them, ran away because they feared the possible tiger, not the people who paused to construct a rational analysis of the scene (and were sometimes mistaken). Speed and pre-judgments matter to us. Rational analysis is an afterthought for when we are safe, not when we are in danger.<br /><br />Our first reaction to any sort of social scene is to immediately assign acquaintances to internal representations of what we know about them, and strangers to various archetypes as placeholders. It is those stand-ins for real people that we are constantly manipulating in our heads as we navigate social situations.<br /><br />The point of Jungian archetypes is not that they are immutable moral principles subject to rational analysis and debate, but that they are common, perhaps universal, shortcuts to the sorts of narratives embedded in our toolset. Objecting to the concept or particular flavor of archetypes from a rational perspective is like objecting to the fragility of our foot and ankle bones from the perspective of an engineer working from designed structures, rather than from the perspective of a "good enough design evolved from pre-existing materials".<br /><br />Jung's usage of an insight he devoted himself to is no doubt fraught with human behavior perils on an ad hominem basis, but the insight itself is a fruitful way of looking at the way humans think using their evolutionarily-descended toolkit. After all, we can perhaps improve on morality and rationality through intent, but we can only bring to it the tools we already have. It's a good thing for Peterson to bring those tools to light so that his students can better understand why they have the psychological filters/failings they have, and to suggest functional ways of dealing with them.<br /><br />Peterson himself is a man like any other and has a man's personal failings, but ad hominem arguments about him are no more relevant than they are about Jung. Certainly Peterson is incontrovertibly effective for his intended audience. Like many applied remedies, it might be more fruitful to analyze why he is effective, than to deny that he could be, in principle.<br /><br />If you think humans can embrace rationality and ignore the older and more fundamental toolset, then you probably believe that humans can change their behavior at will. We can all be thin, and fit, and attentive, etc., just by knowing what the rational behaviors should be (for historically contingent values of "should"). Since that demonstrably doesn't work any better for adults than children, what makes you think this is how humans can actually function?Karen Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06154929987998815506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-15677546473045921252021-11-09T06:23:15.008-08:002021-11-09T06:23:15.008-08:00You must have twisted your brain into a knot with ...You must have twisted your brain into a knot with these mischaracterizations, starting with his relationship with Jung as a totality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-14522878693218967252021-11-09T06:19:07.073-08:002021-11-09T06:19:07.073-08:00It is positively Biblical.
Nice double meaning!
I...<i>It is positively Biblical.</i><br />Nice double meaning!<br /><br />I haven't read Peterson, so I don't have a first-hand opinion, but thanks for a reasoned, critical view. His fans seem a bit, well, fanatic. markedup2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-19157760651444165572021-11-09T06:01:46.951-08:002021-11-09T06:01:46.951-08:00Stuart, I've never much cared for Peterson but...Stuart, I've never much cared for Peterson but now I better know why. Thanks for putting words to my dis-ease. Webutantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02139954791621532194noreply@blogger.com