The smarter you are, by the way, the easier it is to construct a story about the causes of something you only understand intuitively.
Conversation
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
In the sense of the "if I can't see it it can't exist/be relevant" thinking at least.
1
Replying to
I don't think I'd accuse Peterson of that. His problem seems to be thinking he has a functioning PARADIGM when he really only has a few loose ideas.
1
Replying to
Aye. I mean he's good in his field, but anything else he discusses ends up a two-dimensional caricature, or lacking depth.
2
Replying to
I think a lot of it shows a lot of depth... of imagination. There are very few actual, real world corrolaries, except a bit of selective reading.
Replying to
I suspect that being a recovering systematizer myself, most of what sticks out is the clutching at straws for things outside of his field.
Incidentally, flat earth people discussing moon phases and the like can be most amusing, if in the mood.
1
Replying to
I tend to think of my disorderliness as a disadvantage, but I wonder if it doesn't save me from some really nasty ego traps.
1
Show replies