Read on Twitter
A thread for @C_Kavanagh a critique of the critique of @jordanbpeterson.
See their podcast ( @GurusPod), which I’m exploring, here: https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1314600549031899136?s=20
See their podcast ( @GurusPod), which I’m exploring, here: https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1314600549031899136?s=20
1. They briefly critiqued my prior podcast feedback:
I did not say y’all had your “heads in the sand.“ Take a look at my tweet thread, never once used exaggerated language. Skeptic may have said that. I simply disagreed with the goal/reach of CT into various disciplines.
I did not say y’all had your “heads in the sand.“ Take a look at my tweet thread, never once used exaggerated language. Skeptic may have said that. I simply disagreed with the goal/reach of CT into various disciplines.
Second, I also don’t believe we’re on the cusp of a woke regime. I never implied that. See #11 in my original thread. I simply explained what CT theorists literally say.
Happy to talk this out.
Happy to talk this out.
2. Intro: complete agree, Peterson did set out to be a guru.
3. Summary: fair about his academic background, bill C-16, and his rise to fame. Agree.
4. Odd comparison of Trump, Weinstein, and Peterson are in the same camp. All of trump’s life is drama, not so for the others.
3. Summary: fair about his academic background, bill C-16, and his rise to fame. Agree.
4. Odd comparison of Trump, Weinstein, and Peterson are in the same camp. All of trump’s life is drama, not so for the others.
5.Moving on: they said he was difficult to understand. Of course he has a “waffly” way of talking, he’s thinking out loud. They’re right, he speaks tangentially often.
6. They play the first clip, peterson interlinks a few seemingly related ideas per usual...
6. They play the first clip, peterson interlinks a few seemingly related ideas per usual...
they critique, with which I agree, and then ask why that would popular. Well,1st: people see his loquaciousness as a sign of intelligence. 2nd, he’s helping them create “higher order meaning” and simultaneously helping them feel smart. Who wouldn’t want that?
7. Clip 2, he’s opposed to pomo neomarxism. Preamble, another clip about trans folks being sacrifical victims to pomo neo. Then they call peterson a spiritualist. I agree with that. They question his worldview. So, yes Peterson does the postmodernist trick (will address later).
8. They’re both right about peterson being a public personality trying to bridge the gap between people and the religiosity of judeo christian values, he says this pretty explicityly and dresses them up in psychological terms (see my tweet to chris a few days ago).
9. They play a clip of peterson doing the thing he does which I hate the most... he’s hypocritcally doing the pomo thing and weasling out of the definition of the divinity of christ. STRONG AGREE. He won‘t confirm it because then Sam and the new atheists “win.”
10. They further criticize the peterson goes back and forth between various definitions of the same concept as a means of “ strategic ambiguity” so that he can defend his positions. With this critique I agree strongly, however I think it’s a case by case issue.
For instance, Peterson’s very clear about terms like IQ/intelligence, personality, and similar psych terms but then when pushed about metaphysical issues he waffles. No clue of peterson’s motives. Wish I could ask him.
11. They pick at his argument that Dawkins/Harris are trying to have their cake and eat it too re: evolution as a purely materialistic process. Peterson seems to think they’re smuggling in metaphysical processes. i agree with Chris / Matt, ido how Peterson’s argument makes sense.
12. Re: Peterson’s discussion of the enlightenment as a “side effect” of the growth of the Christian movement...the instantiation of a deeper metaphysical force. It makes superficial sense, but lacks a good explanation that drives home the historical data that should support it.
Side note, the crystalline metaphor I do like, but I’d prefer some nod towards evolution of the mind via increasing IQ, language, and more complex social systems. Unsurprisingly, I‘m not disagreeing much with them.
13.They move on to Peterson’s focus on suffering and pain. This makes perfect sense to me. Peterson is chronically depressed, has family members with illnesses, and has read enough philosophy and buddhism that he understands the “grand narrative” that suffering is the norm.
especially in the psych literature we see this. To be clear peterson was dependent upon benzodiazepines, not pain killers. He clearly has a great deal of psychological pain. TBF, many relate...one reason people love him. He is taking on suffering and showing us how to “bear it”.
14. They go after Peterson and the lemon quote. Then wander into the Peterson is a pomo theorist. And they go through his rebuttal to being challenged for it. He believes his realm of interpretations is constrained by evolution and metaphysical Truth.
15. “the depth of christian iconography“ discussion ensued. Chris’s rebuttal with the “Tate Modern” gallery is both good and problematic. Great because it’s obvious and accurate. OTOH, Peterson could come up with a metaphorical explanation re: popular settings & art types, etc
16. Footballer playing a game or real life. CHris calls it a metaphorical trick. A cheap trick. Peterson’s point stands IMHO. From a metaphorical perspective, to what degree can we conceive of most of life like games. In a dialectical sense, life is both “real’ and a “fake” game.
17. They praise him for the criticism of measuring wellbeing and psychosocial/philosophy of science issues.
Furthermore, I would argue that We don’t have an a-priori interpretive structure, see Feldman Barret’s work. The Kant point is nonsense, Wittgenstein was right ;)
Furthermore, I would argue that We don’t have an a-priori interpretive structure, see Feldman Barret’s work. The Kant point is nonsense, Wittgenstein was right ;)
18. “Those two hats don’t sit eh, neatly together” wow, where did that come from?
TBF, the point about marketing himself as a psychologist/man of science vs. guru/theologian do not mix is fair.
TBF, the point about marketing himself as a psychologist/man of science vs. guru/theologian do not mix is fair.
19. I do believe that he is consciously thinking out loud, and his unconscious need for admiration and his “hero complex” drive him to live as if he’s right. TBF I also i’m unsatisfied with the lack of caveats from peterson. This is one way in which I’m radically different.
20. It’s perfectly clear why people attach to him: he’s dad, he’s emotional, he’s convincing, he’s authentic, he is and comes off as smart, he legitimately means well. Spirit as a pattern of being...Matt is reasonably annoyed with it. Also, yes a Western exceptionalismnalistioism
21. I think yall misunderstand why he relies on metaphorical. Smart money says that’s legitimately how his mind works. To a degree, I think his issue running at 8x speed playin 3.5D chess and can’t get back to saying things in an empirical and concrete way.
22. Peterson hold Judeo christian values, but he’s not alt right. He’s definitely not “apolitical,” though I agree we should be more concerned with the growing presence of increasingly more postmodern ideas, etc. Resentment culture is growing in many western institutions,
but I do believe that partially why he’s so focused is because Peterson comes from a fairly liberal university/ culture in canada. Diversity/implicit bias trainings, etc. 100k$ positions for these compliance positions is kind of concerning. Not epidemic, but growing.
23. The “conservatives” are “right wing” comment is silly. I think it’s commonly held that “right wing” is seen as “far end of the spectrum “characterization.”
24. Agree with Matt that Peterson is “largely handwavey.” And the deficit of meaning comment.
24. Agree with Matt that Peterson is “largely handwavey.” And the deficit of meaning comment.
25. Chris: grand sweeping messages appeal is accurate, a “prototypical guru.” Again, not addicted to pain killers. It’s an important difference (as an addictions expert I’m happy to explain why).
My takeaway: the fellas were mostly reasonable.
My takeaway: the fellas were mostly reasonable.
I’m trying to make sense of the laughing and derisiveness. I think it’s just discomfort or fear of stating an opinion or culture. Or some combination.
Regardless, good food for thought. Peterson’s issues are all things I will avoid as I step into the spotlight. Thanks guys!
Regardless, good food for thought. Peterson’s issues are all things I will avoid as I step into the spotlight. Thanks guys!
