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.
2
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.
Replying to
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.