No, honestly, people can write about social phenomena and psychology and movements. It really is OK. Gurwinder Bhogal wrote an excellent thing on the appeal of fundamentalist Islam. He didn't need to include why Islam isn't true.
-
-
In the same way, religious people can write about this without first having to explain why God is real. We know that people have different views on this - theist/atheist, pragmatist/empiricist. They can write all sorts of things from those perspectives.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @AnglerFishLure
I agree with you. But if you write about social/psychological phenomena in a way that characterizes a broad swath of people (particularly in the latter case, where you're interpreting their internal proceses as well as external characteristics) as rubes, you should expect them
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_Baloo_The_Bear @AnglerFishLure
Neither 'rubes' nor 'dupes' appears in that piece. This is clearly how you feel about someone giving a psychological explanation for the attraction to Peterson's rhetoric. It is v similar to how religious people feel when people look at the psychological reasons for their belief
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Because they think it is really true and feel wounded that people who think it isn't want to look at why they are drawn to these ideas. It's obvious to them. It's because it's true! So they keep on & on insisting people debate them on the rightness of their beliefs.
#Devotion1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @AnglerFishLure
Oh for chrissakes, he literally uses the phrase "snake oil". I don't agree with all of Peterson's ideas; attempting to nudge me into the "jilted believer" box is exactly the sort of condescension I'm talking about. People are annoyed because they've been mischaracterized. 1/
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_Baloo_The_Bear @AnglerFishLure
Right. Is that not OK? Must we pretend this kind of thing has worth? Obviously people will be annoyed if they think it does. Same with anything some people think true & others don't. And of course, people feel annoyed if they think they're right & others don't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It seems like more than this tho. You're not just pointing out that people get annoyed when other people don't believe the same thing as them? Its like you think James shouldn't have written from an angle of not sharing those views.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @AnglerFishLure
I think he should have acknowledged that he was writing from one side of the empiricist/pragmatist divide instead of feigning objectivity.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
"Must we pretend this kind of thing has worth" well, that's a loaded question. You must acknowledge it has internal logic if you expect its partisans to see your work as anything other than a hit job. It really isn't difficult to do this & still conclude the ideas are wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
How would that have been remotely relevant. No-one has to believe that or say whether they believe it or not. I'm going away now. I strongly advise you to write your own piece rather than telling other people what they should have written. This angle is clearly of interest to you
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.