Jordan Peterson discussing archetypes, psychology & self-determination vs. Jordan Peterson discussing anything else is a pretty stark difference.
Conversation
He's a guy who seems to manufacture decent conclusions from bad premises. Problem is this reinforces your belief in those premises.
1
Arriving at a sound conclusion does not mean the means by which you got there aren't compromised.
1
The smarter you are, by the way, the easier it is to construct a story about the causes of something you only understand intuitively.
1
1
We tend to conflate our conclusions with the process a lot; most things we know or believe, we arrived at by conjecture.
1
Seeing yourself get things right over and over can leave you a lot more confident than you should be that you understand the process deeply.
1
1
For example, I'd tend to agree with Peterson's analysis that a lot of colleges are compromised with strange ideological radicalism.
1
But where he got the idea that this is explained by postmodernism or neomarxism (and people's affiliation therewith), I really don't see.
1
2
Yet the man, having got something right, has convinced himself that this is some kind of deep, thorough understand of the subject. Weeeeird.
Replying to
What naturally follows from this sort of fundamental misattribution, by the way, is a bottom-up corruption of ideas borne from it.
1
So by assuming his ideas about neomarxism and postmodernism (esp. their soft power) aren't, you know, BS, he now thinks they hold elsewhere.
1
Descartes took a similar route when he realized experience was irreducible.
"Guys, I got something good here, lemme just..."
1
The most toxic ideas are not the ones which are blatantly baseless, but the ones that are useful. yet fundamentally misjudged.
1
1
This whole thing has the ring of solving 2+2 as a multiplication exercise, getting 4, and thinking 3+3 should now be 9.
Scaling issue.
In the sense of the "if I can't see it it can't exist/be relevant" thinking at least.
1
Show replies