We tend to conflate our conclusions with the process a lot; most things we know or believe, we arrived at by conjecture.
Conversation
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
It's like the blind men and the elephant, except that the tree person claims that everyone else is "dead wrong".
1
Replying to
IMO people also reveal a lot about themselves by who they parrot. Ben Shapiro and Stefan Molyneux being in his top retweets is a bad look.
I think the people wanting to *censure* him for that are about as absurd as the aforementioned personages, but that doesn't change what it signals.