[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 50 KB, 1024x576, _92274782_jordanpeterson-still.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9248091 No.9248091 [Reply] [Original]

Alright /sci/, I need some perpective. I have become facinated by Jordan Peterson and his lectures along with the authors he recommends such as Carl Jung and Solzhenitsyn. Have I been convinced by a master persuader or are his ideas actually meaningfull and lucid? I know many here are smarter than me so I would like to hear your opinion.

>> No.9248100

>>9248091
He's a pseud of the highest order, like Dawkins and Tyson but of a lower intelligence for alt right virgins.

>> No.9248107
File: 44 KB, 598x238, 1494596670711.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9248107

>>9248091
>Have I been convinced by a master persuader or are his ideas actually meaningfull and lucid?

>> No.9248113

>>9248100
Tyson maybe a pseud but Dawkins has written some groundbreaking papers in his field. Peterson's politics are antithetical to those of the alt-right.

>> No.9248114

>>9248091
Hello, sir. I study a natural science. I read a book from petersons reading list, namely dostojevkys most famous book. I found it very much relevant and non trivial, as well as fascinating. Orwell is good, as well. Peterson has his own book: "maps of meaning". It has an accurate information about the gödel incompletzeness theorem in it, despite the negative review you might find online. The reviewer just didnt understand gödels theorem.

Peterson uses reason and is a scientist in my eyes. I like his psychological interpretations and historical descriptions very much.

Dont mind me, im drunk.

>> No.9248117
File: 203 KB, 479x470, 1508480068838.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9248117

>>9248107
>proof is impossible, Gödel proved it
Every time.

>> No.9248120
File: 81 KB, 510x344, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9248120

>psych PhD
>792k starting (just in donations from his cultmembers, 66k/month https://www.patreon.com/jordanbpeterson))

>> No.9248122

>>9248107
i agree, thats bullshit (the second sentence). but you need to understand what people mean when they say "god". When i read this, i think god means existance in this context. There is no accurate definition of god. so you need to fill in the valid meaning.

>> No.9248123

>>9248117
There's no contradiction there unless you decided to just ignore the 'without an axiom' part.

>> No.9248125

>>9248117
thats not what he means. he means that any formal system cant prove its own consistency.

>> No.9248127

>>9248120
This only supports the argument that his work is meaningful to many.

>> No.9248132

>>9248120
>cult

did you really inform yourself about the guy ? if so, id like to know why you think that.

>> No.9248134

>>9248122
This person is a retard, any other contributions?

>> No.9248136

>>9248123
The sentence makes even less sense if you keep the "without an axiom". There is nothing to prove if there isn't anything to start from so of course axioms are required. That has nothing to do with Gödel.
>>9248125
That's what Gödel meant. Peterson just spewed some gibberish, I have no idea what he meant.

>> No.9248139

>>9248134
not retard, just drunk. Thanks for the ad hominem.
Anyways. I dont think you understand religion. I am not religious myself, but i bet you dont understand what it means. It is a description of the human mind, of the internal psychology, not of any "god" or "reality".

>> No.9248145

>>9248100
dawkins isn't a pseud

>> No.9248146

>>9248134
What do you think godcould mean in this context ?

>> No.9248151

>>9248136
ok, so maybe i understood the yt vids about gödel and interpreted petersons statements as an description of them, while i didnt see that he didnt understand it. interesting. but where exactly is the mistake he did. spell it out, cause im drunk. please.

>> No.9248154

>>9248139
Congratulations, you are parroting Petersons ideas in a much less articulate way. You are not answering the question.

>> No.9248161

>>9248132
>if so, id like to know why you think that.
see
>>9248114
>>9248139
>>9248151

>> No.9248166

>>9248154
Oh ok. I can answer your question (as i already did in my opinion).
The validity of his twitter post is dependant of the definition of the word (god). Since there is no objective definition,we can fill in any possible choice. Use the standard definition: he who created everything (logic, reality, being):
There could be no proof without a medium to prove it.

With this interpretation what peterson says is correct. But it has no information in it. you cant derive meaningful equations or statements from it.
yes ?

>> No.9248168

>>9248161
haha so you define a cult as a drunk person writing random words on 4chan while he doesnt give a shit ? nice logic, m8

>> No.9248173

im surprised i can still write readable wordds

>> No.9248175

>>9248166
I think the very existence of you, as a Peterson advocate, answers my question in the original thread.

>> No.9248185

>>9248175
what was your question in the original thread ? Also, im not an advocate. I just saw a few videos and find that some of his opinions are valid.

>> No.9248189

it is also funny how you describe me as an advocate, since for an argument it doesnt matter on which side you are. only the arguments and their validity, as much as the logical structure of your ideas matters.

>> No.9248193

>>9248185
You can't string a sentence together and don't blame being drunk. Inebriation affects spelling rather than grammar. My worry is that he appeals to low IQ people with high trait openness and I think you are proof of that.

>> No.9248203
File: 533 KB, 639x732, jps.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9248203

The dragons of order, man, they're no joke, roughly speaking. They'll eat you! That's why they're high in conscientiousness and hoard gold! But the dragons of chaos? VERY low in agreeableness. That's how you slip into nihilism! They've taken your father to the belly of the underworld! They sent Christ to the gulag, bucko, and that's that!

>> No.9248206

>>9248193
youre intelligent. i am dumb. thanks for clarifying that. Still, that is not what this is about. please, tell me where the problems are: which problem is there with jordan petersons perspecticve ? Let us concentrate on the arguments instead of grammar and ourselfes, please. Go on. Educate me.

>> No.9248210

>>9248203
nice meme. i laughed. but its not what he says, roughly speaking.

>> No.9248214

Smart guy

Lots of interesting yt content

Some people call him a cultist, but he isn't advocating harm on anybody (the opposite actually). He also has tenure at the university of toronto, and is well-published in his field. Don't believe me? Type his name in in NCBI pubmed

>> No.9248217

>>9248206
I can't find faults in his arguments so I was appealing to someone that could.

>> No.9248219

>>9248214
Totally agree.

>> No.9248224

>>9248217
So you were just fucking with me ?
How cruel.

>> No.9248226

>>9248224
No, you should learn when your input is valuble. I dont want fanboys, I want to be proven wrong.

>> No.9248227

He has some interesting ideas. In some of his long rants he approaches territory that I've explored through meditation and other spiritual practices, only Peterson examines literature and mythology through the lens of Jung and shit instead.

He reallllyyy likes Gulag Archipelago.

I think his advice to young people and his self-authoring programs etc. are really solid and could help a lot of people.

>> No.9248229

>>9248193
>critiquing folks spelling or fraiser on the chans

imagine being this much of a cunt

>> No.9248230

>>9248226
Fuck you. Only because its not valuable to you doesnt mean you shoud talk shit.

>> No.9248234

>>9248230
Sort yourself out, man, as Peterson would say. Stop getting drunk.

>> No.9248242

>>9248234
I can get drunk as much as i want. Dont project your views of the world onto me.

>> No.9248247

>>9248229
Weird right, judging peoples writing on a platform that relies solely on writing.

>> No.9248254

>>9248247
let me phrease that differently: judging peoples arguments on the basis of the form of their arguments

>> No.9248258

>>9248242
Christ, I guess Peterson's advice isn't that persuasive...

>> No.9248262

>>9248258
He doesnt say that its not allowed to get drunk. You didnt interpret his statements in the same way i did. So why dont you prove to me that they have to be interpreted in such a way that it is not allowed to be drunk ?

>> No.9248271

>>9248254
This means nothing. Please learn to write.

>> No.9248279

>>9248271
how could i rephrase that ? Did you understand what i meant to say ? If so, why are you complaining ?

>> No.9248286

>>9248279
>on the basis of the form of their arguments

We use words to express our arguments. If you can't use words, you can't effectively express your arguement.

>> No.9248292

>>9248271
you can be fucking happy that i know any words in the english language at all

>> No.9248298

>>9248286
If youre a human you can effectively extreapolate the meaning of my sentences. If youre a computer, well, then i dont care. because you have no conciousenss in that case.

>> No.9248303

>>9248292
Can I?

>> No.9248339

>>9248303
i dont know. why not ?
Are you not happy about out conversation ?
we did not have a conversation, desu.
anyways. thats the conclusion of our story. cause youre judgemental, And we cannot possibly get into a dialogue. it was fun. but im sorry that it has to end.goodbye, anon.

>> No.9248633

>>9248107
Hes probably joking

>> No.9249367

>>9248091
My introduction to him was his first time on Joe Rogan's poscast and my response to his ideas on religion was to roll my eyes.

After listening to him more I find myself agreeing with his views on truth, and I think the way he is going about interpreting fiction is the best way to understand human values.

>> No.9249439

>>9248091
He's a pseud.

>> No.9249599

>>9248107
You know that he probably doesn't believe in a god, as he's stated before, he "acts as if God exists". He's religious in a completely different way than others, as he takes the stories from the bible as purely metaphorical, and having psychological benefit.

>> No.9249610

his critics attack him with such religious animosity its amazing.
what they lack in arguments they mack up in fervor.

I think his videos are interesting, meaningful and helpful to myself and my life. I won't pay for content unless its tailored to me tho

>> No.9249616
File: 18 KB, 353x334, 435346546.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9249616

>>9248113
>>9248145
*tips fedora

>> No.9249624

>>9248091
he chose the metaphoric system for his psychology, as he feels it is most consistent.
What he says is satisfied by the same accounts of behavior any other psychologist will appreciate- he just chooses to invoke Jung, sometimes Nietzsche, etc., while doing so.
He seems like an alright guy. I think he tends to be too ~convinced~ by his own understanding of things, and it sometimes comes off as scientifically ignorant (when he talks about mystical archetypes for example).
I don't think watching his lectures will necessarily harm you; only under certain conditions- i.e., for example if you use him for philosophical insight rather than for self help- will you find yourself discomposed relative to some other learned person.

>> No.9250432

>>9248091
He's a moron and a charlatan. Everything he says is rhetoric and he just recycles Jung and anecdotes. Low IQ claims to be 160+. Just appeals to his Christian Patreonbux and strawmans postmodernists when he's on his back foot.

Has some good life advice if you are a retard.

Watch him debate with Sam Harris and watch him be exposed as an intellectual toddler. Sam Harris in turn was embarrassed by Scott Adams (a comic book writer)

His accomplishments are limited to publications in Psychology (a pseudoscience)

>> No.9250586

>>9248091
I wouldn't call him a brainlet but his work amounts almost entirely to
>Regurgitate Jung, Nee Chee, and half of the /lit/ top 100 an easy to digest manner
>Practice clinical psychology
>Give millenials the advice their idiot boomer fathers never did

his biggest sin
>Paint SJW "postmodernists" as unambiguously evil while simultaneously advocating to never accept one-bit answers to complex problems

>> No.9251281

>>9249367
>his views on truth
it's funny cause those are his most eyeroll-worthy views

>> No.9251287

>>9248107
>presuppositionalism
Peterson's way too smart for that shit.

>> No.9251381
File: 62 KB, 182x218, Screen Shot 2016-11-18 at 3.03.33 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9251381

>> No.9251408

His boner for mythology is way too massive. I wish he would stop interjecting "dragon of chaos" into every sentence.