[untitled]
65 comments
So, I work in Silicon Valley, I'm pretty open minded, well educated, etc, etc. Over the past 5 years, much of Silicon Valley has been invaded by this kind of behavior. There has long been a bit of it (I went to a liberal arts university, UCSC, about 25 years ago), but it's really exploded.
Seeing this kind of misleading behavior, and the excessive message telegraphing, is a commonplace occurrence now. If you dare question it, you risk being fired.
The good news is, the last few months, I've started to see more moderate coworkers finally stand up to this type of person and say: "No. You can't keep dominating the social conversation. You're not the majority, your ideas are just one of many, experts are authorities for a reason, and yes, there are systemic problems, but using clickbait to whine about it isn't solving problems".
Seeing this kind of misleading behavior, and the excessive message telegraphing, is a commonplace occurrence now. If you dare question it, you risk being fired.
The good news is, the last few months, I've started to see more moderate coworkers finally stand up to this type of person and say: "No. You can't keep dominating the social conversation. You're not the majority, your ideas are just one of many, experts are authorities for a reason, and yes, there are systemic problems, but using clickbait to whine about it isn't solving problems".
Yep. The interviewer's style is something akin to this:
Peterson: "Since they are human beings, women are mortal."
Interviewer: "So you're saying that all women should be murdered."
That is only a slight exaggeration of what she was doing. He would say something, then she would respond with "So you're saying...(some hot-button statement totally unrelated to what he actually said)".
I give him a lot of credit for remaining calm through that.
Peterson: "Since they are human beings, women are mortal."
Interviewer: "So you're saying that all women should be murdered."
That is only a slight exaggeration of what she was doing. He would say something, then she would respond with "So you're saying...(some hot-button statement totally unrelated to what he actually said)".
I give him a lot of credit for remaining calm through that.
Cathy Newman allowed Peterson to answer to all of her intentional misinterpretations.
Peterson clearly enjoyed that intellectually challenging interview.
Peterson clearly enjoyed that intellectually challenging interview.
"Intellectually challenging" that wasn't intellectually challenging for him in the slightest. Having someone constantly misrepresent you isn't "challenging". Challenging is when someone understands what you are saying, follows your line of logic and arrives at a conclusion you weren't expecting. He simply knew he was interacting with a person who bought into a certain worldview and figured the best way to show her how she was wrong was by being a bit light hearted, but showing he wasn't a pushover either.
Challenging for the interviewer you mean. He didn't break a sweat.
Cathy Newman (the journalist) is putting all her efforts to make that interview interesting and to present Jordan Peterson views. That is why she is trying to make it controversial and tries to present most likely misinterpretations of Peterson's position.
These misinterpretations allow Peterson clearly state what his position is and what it is not.
I think Cathy Newman did a good job with that interview. She could do it even better if she was a little bit less aggressive with interrupting Peterson. She still had to interrupt him though in order to maintain good interview pace (but interrupt a little bit less).
Note that most likely Cathy Newman finds Peterson's views on that topic - interesting. That is why she invited him to do that interview and promote his book.
These misinterpretations allow Peterson clearly state what his position is and what it is not.
I think Cathy Newman did a good job with that interview. She could do it even better if she was a little bit less aggressive with interrupting Peterson. She still had to interrupt him though in order to maintain good interview pace (but interrupt a little bit less).
Note that most likely Cathy Newman finds Peterson's views on that topic - interesting. That is why she invited him to do that interview and promote his book.
Your view - fair enough but seems to me she gave every indication that for her, Peterson's views were infuriating and initially, an easy target for demolition. The interview was a lousy job thanks to the fixed agenda she brought with her. Newman just couldn't get her head round the 9% pay gap conundrum and ignored JP's explanation which is obvious to anyone who thinks about it.
I agree that the interview is awful, but consider what an interview with an advocate of social justice and equality would be like if it were given by one of many popular alt-right Youtubers.
There are some incredibly hot button emotional issues under the surface here. It's very hard for most people to talk about any of this without going nuts.
There are some incredibly hot button emotional issues under the surface here. It's very hard for most people to talk about any of this without going nuts.
I saw the interview yesterday, and my first reaction was similar to most, I found it infuriating.
After thinking about it, I'm glad she aligned herself with Peterson's most vitriolic critics, because it gave him a chance to address that vitriol head-on, and he did so successfully. Hopefully it served to draw some of those with polarized or ill-informed impressions of Peterson towards moderation.
I'm skeptical the host was actually as vicious as she made herself to be, that may have simply been a role she adopted for the interview.
After thinking about it, I'm glad she aligned herself with Peterson's most vitriolic critics, because it gave him a chance to address that vitriol head-on, and he did so successfully. Hopefully it served to draw some of those with polarized or ill-informed impressions of Peterson towards moderation.
I'm skeptical the host was actually as vicious as she made herself to be, that may have simply been a role she adopted for the interview.
It is a professional journalist's job to do just that. Most people can't do heart transplants either, but that's not an argument to be made for protecting a negligent heart surgeon.
Rather, imagine if it were given by Tucker Carlson. I seriously doubt it would be quite like this. This is just totally unprofessional.
Threads like this getting buried on HN are a symptom of the ideological intolerance and echo-chamber problems that lead to people like the interviewer never having encountered Peterson's ideas before.
No, it's a symptom of HN not being a place for ideological battle. Users flag such posts, presumably for that reason.
If you want a site dedicated to this sort of disputation, there are other places to find that, and room for new forums as well.
There's a class of users who only want to fight these same fights over and over again, they're a minority, they're not using HN in its intended spirit, and they shouldn't have the ability to fundamentally alter it for the users who do.
If you want a site dedicated to this sort of disputation, there are other places to find that, and room for new forums as well.
There's a class of users who only want to fight these same fights over and over again, they're a minority, they're not using HN in its intended spirit, and they shouldn't have the ability to fundamentally alter it for the users who do.
The solution to that problem can be found in accessing HN through the RSS feed. This way you get to see everything that is posted (to the feed) without the bias effect of the high-and-low game of the front page ranking.
This actually goes for all news, not just HN. Accessing it through a feed reader makes it possible to see other interesting behaviour, e.g. news outlets quickly correcting article headings or actually deleting articles. It shows you the headings in the order of publication and leaves any ranking up to you.
Of course this only works as long as news outlets publish an RSS (or Atom) stream and as long as that stream is not censored.
This actually goes for all news, not just HN. Accessing it through a feed reader makes it possible to see other interesting behaviour, e.g. news outlets quickly correcting article headings or actually deleting articles. It shows you the headings in the order of publication and leaves any ranking up to you.
Of course this only works as long as news outlets publish an RSS (or Atom) stream and as long as that stream is not censored.
Another method I was just informed of - https://hckrnews.com apparently shows flagged posts
Somewhere I saw Jordan Peterson saying that he spends a lot of time examining his arguments from all angles and trying to find fault with them. Many arguments we see in modern discourse are little more than a train of thought that sounds good but hasn't seen much scrutiny[0]. I've certainly been guilty of making such arguments, myself (some probably on this website). If I can make the comparison to software, it's like the difference between checking that an application works vs. actively trying to break or subvert it.
I took a class on critical thinking in university and I think it was one of the most important classes I took. I find myself breaking down a lot of what I read in the news and elsewhere and finding that it doesn't hold up to basic analysis. Unfortunately I don't think I was ever taught how to effectively turn that analysis back on myself (or perhaps an attempt was made but my teenage self ignored it).
Regarding the interview, I think it is best summarized by the lobster exchange towards the end. I was disappointed, as I would like to see Peterson challenged by someone who has done their research.
[0] Indeed, the linked article has arguments which fall into this category in places.
I took a class on critical thinking in university and I think it was one of the most important classes I took. I find myself breaking down a lot of what I read in the news and elsewhere and finding that it doesn't hold up to basic analysis. Unfortunately I don't think I was ever taught how to effectively turn that analysis back on myself (or perhaps an attempt was made but my teenage self ignored it).
Regarding the interview, I think it is best summarized by the lobster exchange towards the end. I was disappointed, as I would like to see Peterson challenged by someone who has done their research.
[0] Indeed, the linked article has arguments which fall into this category in places.
[deleted]
Disappointed by what? The serotonin idea is not some kooky idea thought up by Peterson; it has massive amounts of evidential backing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2612120/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110915102917.h...
https://www.cliniciansbrief.com/article/canine-aggression-li...
http://caspar.bgsu.edu/~courses/Reading/Papers/1997EdwKra.pd...
Watching this interview was largely a waste of time. I think it was best encapsulated by Peterson's comment on heirarchical social structures among lobsters being followed by the question, "So you're saying we should organize our society like the lobsters?" A collection of thoughtful statements followed by misunderstandings or outright misrepresentations of what he had just said.
I was disappointed because I would like to see him defend his positions against someone with well-prepared criticisms. Admittedly I don't go seeking out Peterson content so perhaps there are plenty of those sorts of discussions floating around (if you know of any I would appreciate a link). It's not that I necessarily think he's wrong, I just appreciate the occasional probing, aggressive interview -- provided it's well-executed (which this one was not).
I was disappointed because I would like to see him defend his positions against someone with well-prepared criticisms. Admittedly I don't go seeking out Peterson content so perhaps there are plenty of those sorts of discussions floating around (if you know of any I would appreciate a link). It's not that I necessarily think he's wrong, I just appreciate the occasional probing, aggressive interview -- provided it's well-executed (which this one was not).
I have become effectively alt-right (it is complicated, but for HN purposes it suffices), from a libertarian conservative, in the last two years, specifically because of behavior like that of this interviewer.
I no longer think it is possible to engage in dialog with people who think dialog is not possible. The punch-a-nazi meme, its acceptance across my social circles (including HN), the our-violence-is-speech-their-speech-is-violence talking points, etc. have pushed me to some very shocking and depressing conclusions.
I no longer think it is possible to engage in dialog with people who think dialog is not possible. The punch-a-nazi meme, its acceptance across my social circles (including HN), the our-violence-is-speech-their-speech-is-violence talking points, etc. have pushed me to some very shocking and depressing conclusions.
What's your view on the prevalence of unsupported prejudice (racism, xenophobia, etc)?
I don't really understand why SJW groups don't sue people for their racist/"nazist" remarks, other than it's expensive.
There are some famous cases https://www.cnet.com/news/taking-trolls-to-court-lawsuit-tar... , but probably SJWs want instant gratification, hence the punching.
That doesn't make it acceptable, mostly because it's not even funny. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpyBPwCmfn0 )
> I no longer think it is possible to engage in dialog with people who think dialog is not possible.
Yes, some people seem to be completely lost.
I don't really understand why SJW groups don't sue people for their racist/"nazist" remarks, other than it's expensive.
There are some famous cases https://www.cnet.com/news/taking-trolls-to-court-lawsuit-tar... , but probably SJWs want instant gratification, hence the punching.
That doesn't make it acceptable, mostly because it's not even funny. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpyBPwCmfn0 )
> I no longer think it is possible to engage in dialog with people who think dialog is not possible.
Yes, some people seem to be completely lost.
> What's your view on the prevalence of unsupported prejudice
I don't like the careless negativity about non-european people that you see on the alt-right, but I see much more casual negativity towards europeans on the left that goes uncommented on. Broadly I'm coming to agree with Greg Johnson: the best way for peoples to get along is for each people to have their own sovereign country, and I don't think that has to come from a place of viciousness. I view european people the same as I view the japanese, israelis or nigerians: they deserve their own countries and spaces to live the way they see fit.
I don't like the careless negativity about non-european people that you see on the alt-right, but I see much more casual negativity towards europeans on the left that goes uncommented on. Broadly I'm coming to agree with Greg Johnson: the best way for peoples to get along is for each people to have their own sovereign country, and I don't think that has to come from a place of viciousness. I view european people the same as I view the japanese, israelis or nigerians: they deserve their own countries and spaces to live the way they see fit.
Huh. That's a pretty simplistic view, to the point of uselessness.
Voluntary segregation works to a degree, but the nation state model breaks down fast when you consider different groups within. Just look at the problems in Israel with the Ultra Orthodox people, they are hard liners on many issues (women's rights for example).
And what does European mean in the context of the US? Should they just pack up and come home and give the land back to the various native tribes?
Because currently the Nazi problem (white supremacy, racism, fixed gender roles, fixed family structure, fixed sexual orientation - but let's simply focus on the racism thing) is that radical progressives rattle the cage because they see the systemic injustice against natives/others. And reservations (giving [not taking, in this case] land to people) haven't solved shit, they're still hopeless addicts (alcohol/opioids/etc).
In this sense the problem is, that people have too little minds, they lack the big picture. Some people (SJWs) see the injustice and want to go and cuddle the addicts, and blame the people who are better off; whereas other people (alt-right) point at the addicts and have the audacity to sincerely ask "how much money do we want to pour into them?", while of course both groups missing the point that there's a reason why they are worse off.
Accepting that yeah, it'd be good for the natives as a group to "move on" psychologically - even if very strictly speaking it's their right to hold a nihilistic apocalyptic view of the world (after all, their world ended more than a hundred years ago [the last skirmish happened almost exactly 100 years ago in 1918 January]), or accepting that maybe there really was no dog whistling in the H&M jungle monkey hoodie, all of these, of course, doesn't address the current situation of easy to describe groups (like "inner city blacks") having serious problems, and the seemingly paradoxical treatment (give them enough welfare, so they can wither away their lives on cheap drugs).
Indeed, the rationally obvious strategy is to set up a nice and fair triage process and let that decide how much effort/resource should be allocated to solving/treating the problems of various regions, groups, substance abuse patterns, different manifestations of poverty and lack of social mobility. This way it might turn out that solving the problem of Appalachian (mainly white trash) abusing prescription drugs has a higher priority than solving inner city poverty. Or more likely it'll turn out that both need attention, both need resources, both present some high cost-benefit ways to reduce the problems, yet neither are completely solvable withing a generation, nor are either somehow morally more important than the other, but they are both severely worsened by ideologically muddy approach by previous (federal, state and local) administrations and power structures (such as perceived and real admission difference of universities between the aforementioned disadvantaged groups).
Voluntary segregation works to a degree, but the nation state model breaks down fast when you consider different groups within. Just look at the problems in Israel with the Ultra Orthodox people, they are hard liners on many issues (women's rights for example).
And what does European mean in the context of the US? Should they just pack up and come home and give the land back to the various native tribes?
Because currently the Nazi problem (white supremacy, racism, fixed gender roles, fixed family structure, fixed sexual orientation - but let's simply focus on the racism thing) is that radical progressives rattle the cage because they see the systemic injustice against natives/others. And reservations (giving [not taking, in this case] land to people) haven't solved shit, they're still hopeless addicts (alcohol/opioids/etc).
In this sense the problem is, that people have too little minds, they lack the big picture. Some people (SJWs) see the injustice and want to go and cuddle the addicts, and blame the people who are better off; whereas other people (alt-right) point at the addicts and have the audacity to sincerely ask "how much money do we want to pour into them?", while of course both groups missing the point that there's a reason why they are worse off.
Accepting that yeah, it'd be good for the natives as a group to "move on" psychologically - even if very strictly speaking it's their right to hold a nihilistic apocalyptic view of the world (after all, their world ended more than a hundred years ago [the last skirmish happened almost exactly 100 years ago in 1918 January]), or accepting that maybe there really was no dog whistling in the H&M jungle monkey hoodie, all of these, of course, doesn't address the current situation of easy to describe groups (like "inner city blacks") having serious problems, and the seemingly paradoxical treatment (give them enough welfare, so they can wither away their lives on cheap drugs).
Indeed, the rationally obvious strategy is to set up a nice and fair triage process and let that decide how much effort/resource should be allocated to solving/treating the problems of various regions, groups, substance abuse patterns, different manifestations of poverty and lack of social mobility. This way it might turn out that solving the problem of Appalachian (mainly white trash) abusing prescription drugs has a higher priority than solving inner city poverty. Or more likely it'll turn out that both need attention, both need resources, both present some high cost-benefit ways to reduce the problems, yet neither are completely solvable withing a generation, nor are either somehow morally more important than the other, but they are both severely worsened by ideologically muddy approach by previous (federal, state and local) administrations and power structures (such as perceived and real admission difference of universities between the aforementioned disadvantaged groups).
Would this not be analogous to becoming an atheist just because you don't like some of the practitioners of your faith? Or maybe another related faith?
What do you see as the way forward if dialog can't happen?
What do you see as the way forward if dialog can't happen?
> What do you see as the way forward if dialog can't happen?
Peaceful separation is my hope. But it is a faint hope.
Peaceful separation is my hope. But it is a faint hope.
It's scary how effectively this sort of thing can push reasonable people towards the fringes. I've noticed the same somewhat disturbing tendency in myself and others who would otherwise be relatively centrist, but are disgusted at some of the antics and rhetoric villifying them.
Direct link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
This interview really demonstrates the style of argumentation you see around these topics, just dialed up to 11.
Practitioners of this form of argument intentionally mis-represent the other side to form a strawman argument. This works exceptionally well on Twitter, where someone quote-tweets their adversary, intentionally warping their words with the intention to shame. Some people have called this tactic "dunking on" their opponent.
Those tactics work very poorly in this 1-to-1 format, in part because of the longform nature, but mostly because one can't instantly appeal to an outside audience for likes/retweets.
Practitioners of this form of argument intentionally mis-represent the other side to form a strawman argument. This works exceptionally well on Twitter, where someone quote-tweets their adversary, intentionally warping their words with the intention to shame. Some people have called this tactic "dunking on" their opponent.
Those tactics work very poorly in this 1-to-1 format, in part because of the longform nature, but mostly because one can't instantly appeal to an outside audience for likes/retweets.
I don't think that tactic works poorly in that format at all, it's just that this person is incredibly good at defending against it. Very few people could withstand such an interview.
Jordan Peterson might have defended well compared to an average person, but I was still surprised too see him uncomfortable and expending extra energy to answer the questions than what I expected. Those were hard questions, but he would have surely expected those kind of questions before going to the interview. He did not look well prepared, and some of his answers lacked the clarity and punch which we can usually see in his youtube lectures.
How could anyone not expend extra energy when faced with that sort of interview "technique". I thought he handled it very well. How did he not look prepared? Some of here questions were so off the point of what they were discussing it'd be hard not to react aggressively. I think that's what you're seeing, him holding back. I mean, we should organise our society like "the lobsters"?? WTF?
good point.
Exactly. This tactic breaks all but maybe a thousand people in the world. I wouldn't have lasted two minutes, I would have just blown up at her and embarrassed myself.
We are very lucky to have Jordan Peterson, one of those very few people, to speak for free speech.
We are very lucky to have Jordan Peterson, one of those very few people, to speak for free speech.
The interviewer is either extremely confused about her own ideology or being deliberately standoffish by invoking strawman after strawman.
She seems to think certain groups of people are entitled to success they haven't earned, because there is some nefarious and ill-defined force oppressing them.
Peterson handled it well and made some great points about the roles of competence, sacrifice and disagreeableness in work success.
She seems to think certain groups of people are entitled to success they haven't earned, because there is some nefarious and ill-defined force oppressing them.
Peterson handled it well and made some great points about the roles of competence, sacrifice and disagreeableness in work success.
She wasn't confused about anything. She was intentionally misrepresenting what he said.
I'm pretty squarely in the progressive camp, but this interview was ridiculous. The interviewer was making numerous assumptions and wild assertions that didn't follow at all from what Peterson was saying. She was arguing with her pre-perception rather than arguing with him.
[deleted]
The difference between critical theory (and postmodernism generally) and social justice is the belief in universal values. Believers in postmodernism don't accept universal values. They see every conflict as a power struggle, devoid of moral truth.
Broadly speaking, social justice advocates, or at least those described in the article, and caricatured by the Channel 4 interview, do have a universal value, namely equality of outcome.
The truly destructive force, again shown in that interview, is that logic is not universally valued. If equality of outcome can be obtained while posturing and arguing strawmen, then go for it.
Broadly speaking, social justice advocates, or at least those described in the article, and caricatured by the Channel 4 interview, do have a universal value, namely equality of outcome.
The truly destructive force, again shown in that interview, is that logic is not universally valued. If equality of outcome can be obtained while posturing and arguing strawmen, then go for it.
Equality of outcome can only be obtained through tyranny. Or perhaps at some point in the future by surrendering to a benevolent super AI.
Neither scenario is appealing.
Neither scenario is appealing.
This post is rocketing down the list. It was number 1 just 10 minutes or so ago, then it went to 6, now it's 36.
Is that normal or is this post being moderated or brigaded?
edit: And now it's gone completely from the list with 74 points...
edit 2: Ok now it's back... wtf mods make up your mind about what we're allowed to see
edit 3: All the comments in this thread are getting brigaded down.
Is that normal or is this post being moderated or brigaded?
edit: And now it's gone completely from the list with 74 points...
edit 2: Ok now it's back... wtf mods make up your mind about what we're allowed to see
edit 3: All the comments in this thread are getting brigaded down.
Mods didn't do anything. Users flagged it. The tug of war between upvotes and flags is the eternal cycle of life on HN; you could not be describing anything more routine.
It was also flagged for a few minutes, definitely being brigaded.
Also, my link to the interview in this thread as top level comment was initially getting downvotes, and now it's positive. I'm not sure what an honest reason could be for downvoting a link to the interview that the article is referencing.
Also, my link to the interview in this thread as top level comment was initially getting downvotes, and now it's positive. I'm not sure what an honest reason could be for downvoting a link to the interview that the article is referencing.
Alt-right vs. "SJW" left posts get flagged around here. Usually I agree and one of the reasons I hang around here is to stay away from that whole scorpion fight.
Personally I view both as two sides of the same coin. Both the alt-right and the social justice left are totalitarian, intolerant, and intellectually shallow. I find their argumentative styles, emotional reactivity, and style of engagement with the larger culture to be strikingly similar to the point that I see them as different manifestations of some underlying social or psychological disorder.
I actually used "vouch" on this one, which I rarely do, because it's interesting and a bit more substantial than the usual fare.
Personally I view both as two sides of the same coin. Both the alt-right and the social justice left are totalitarian, intolerant, and intellectually shallow. I find their argumentative styles, emotional reactivity, and style of engagement with the larger culture to be strikingly similar to the point that I see them as different manifestations of some underlying social or psychological disorder.
I actually used "vouch" on this one, which I rarely do, because it's interesting and a bit more substantial than the usual fare.
This notion that the Alt-right is just another side of the coin is, I think, a misdirection. In fact I think the whole Alt-right label is entirely arbitrary and doing a significant amount of harm by polarizing the discussion. Black and white representations of the world leave us confused and frustrated.
Truth is the world is complex. We're dealing with multi-variate problems to use JBP's term. The societal benefits of free speech and open dialog are harmed by polarization. Reductionist generalizations pollute truth with doubt. Our societal discussions should be liquid and multi-dimensional.
Truth is the world is complex. We're dealing with multi-variate problems to use JBP's term. The societal benefits of free speech and open dialog are harmed by polarization. Reductionist generalizations pollute truth with doubt. Our societal discussions should be liquid and multi-dimensional.
Though Peterson is often characterized as alt-right, I think that's quite unfair. He's often grossly mistaken about things, but doesn't believe in bigotry, nationalism, etc..
I'm not sure if he makes the leap, but it's not hard to go from his soft biological determinism to "well then this is the way things should be." For example if women "don't want tough careers" then it follows that claims of discrimination by women can be dismissed as without merit.
I do definitely see him as an apologist for aspects of the status quo. That being said that does not mean I'm a fan of all his detractors. There's a totalitarian strain of liberalism I don't much like either.
Also... his Twitter feed contains enough alt-right material for me to see him as at least sympathetic.
I do definitely see him as an apologist for aspects of the status quo. That being said that does not mean I'm a fan of all his detractors. There's a totalitarian strain of liberalism I don't much like either.
Also... his Twitter feed contains enough alt-right material for me to see him as at least sympathetic.
I haven't seen his twitter feed, granted.
To your first point, to make that leap would be to conflate "is" and "ought". Yes, many people do make that error, but you can't accuse him of doing it when others do.
To your first point, to make that leap would be to conflate "is" and "ought". Yes, many people do make that error, but you can't accuse him of doing it when others do.
The is/ought issue is one of the core philosophical issues under the surface here. It goes to the heart of what it means to be a liberal (broadly defined) or a conservative.
To be a conservative is to tend toward deriving "ought" from "is," or at least skepticism toward attempts to change the status quo.
To be a conservative is to tend toward deriving "ought" from "is," or at least skepticism toward attempts to change the status quo.
Sure, but you can't accuse him of doing this unless he actually makes these arguments.
Doing so equates to the same fallacy that intelligent design adherents make, which is that since evolution yields ugly, selfish behavior, it must be wrong, or at least we should keep our mouths shut abou tit. Peterson is just pointing out how things are, not how we should design our policies.
I think he should probably be more responsible in qualifying his statements to prevent his simple minded followers from jumping to the wrong conclusions, but that's about as strong of an indictment as I think one could make against him, at least in this context.
Doing so equates to the same fallacy that intelligent design adherents make, which is that since evolution yields ugly, selfish behavior, it must be wrong, or at least we should keep our mouths shut abou tit. Peterson is just pointing out how things are, not how we should design our policies.
I think he should probably be more responsible in qualifying his statements to prevent his simple minded followers from jumping to the wrong conclusions, but that's about as strong of an indictment as I think one could make against him, at least in this context.
There are no arguments or talking points in the interview that are specific to the collectivist alt-right. Peterson is clearly an anti-authoritarian individualist.
[deleted]
HN can probably only handle one of these at a time, if that. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16182318)
Exactly, interestingly one of these threads had flags turned off, the other one did not.
I turned flags off as an experiment to see if HN could have an interesting, civil discussion. I would not call it a great success. Nevertheless the article itself seemed to me to provide a much better initial basis for such a discussion—regardless of whether one agreed with it—than one like this, which appeals mostly to narrow partisans on both sides.
I can tell you that the tactics used by so called justice seekers are exactly the same we had in my dear soviet union. I don't know where it is heading but because America decides the course if the western civilization, I feel uncomfortable.
Peterson is doing great work. I hope he can handle the pressure.
Peterson is doing great work. I hope he can handle the pressure.
Can you expand on this at all? Your comment fascinated me, and I’m now very curious about what the climate was like in the Soviet Union. Any book or movie recommendations?
One of the many propaganda topics during the civil war was that the Russian Empire was oppressing many minor ethnicities and cultures. They called the Russian culture velikoderzhavny (a kind of “imperial”) chauvinism. And the USSR was made to unite all ethnicities and make everyone equal. Everyone except Russians. Bolsheviks worked hard to build a new culture without that ”imperial culture”. So they killed or imprisoned many scientists or educated people born in the Empire, tried to build new culture, etc. The main personal trait of those activists was the absolute moral superiority over “imperial oppressors”, which was especially useful during tortures and mass executions — they were exterminating a class, not individuals, so there were nothing personal in murders (this is a citation of Martin Latsis [1]).
Of the post civil war USSR I can recall one thing that was common. One could only have a successful career provided that they was “clean”: non educated parents, no bourgeois relatives in the past, relatives helping build the communism (e.g. in charge of mass executions).
So, the “clear” understanding of what’s good and what’s evil together with the moral superiority make justice trivial.
P.S. Throwaway for obvious reasons.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Latsis
Of the post civil war USSR I can recall one thing that was common. One could only have a successful career provided that they was “clean”: non educated parents, no bourgeois relatives in the past, relatives helping build the communism (e.g. in charge of mass executions).
So, the “clear” understanding of what’s good and what’s evil together with the moral superiority make justice trivial.
P.S. Throwaway for obvious reasons.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Latsis
Society was saturated with a paranoia of not appearing to think or act the wrong way. Any accusation of having ideas that could qualify of being outside the acceptable boundaries was very dangerous. The accusations were often pulled out of thin air to neutralise intellectuals, political opponents, or disliked people in general. Effectively. That type of mentality is partly what inspired wrongthink in Orwel's "1984".
If you would like to experience what the atmosphere was like living in the Soviet Union, a good book to read is Peterson's often recommended "The Gulag archipelago".
If you would like to experience what the atmosphere was like living in the Soviet Union, a good book to read is Peterson's often recommended "The Gulag archipelago".
Something that would probably be good to read (or listen to) is The Gulag Archipelago. I haven't gotten through it yet. But a great story early on is one about a speech Stalin gave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOP0HQUTSo0 This video has a pretty good summary of the story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOP0HQUTSo0 This video has a pretty good summary of the story.
Link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
Anyone have a transcript?
Most striking to me was that her tone, body-language, and words all seemed to broadcast this message: "To those at home, my guest is a villain. We all know it. I'm going to get to the bottom of this, get him to confess his crimes, and maybe get some insight into the mind of a bad person."
Again, I don't know anything about this interviewer or Britain's channel 4, so I don't know if this sort of thing is just their standard format.