Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#31

Post by Turing_Machine » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 2:11 AM UTC

hyperdunc wrote: post #8

nicolashahn wrote: post #4

Direct link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

The interviewer is either extremely confused about her own ideology or being deliberately standoffish by invoking strawman after strawman. She seems to think certain groups of people are entitled to success they haven't earned, because there is some nefarious and ill-defined force oppressing them. Peterson handled it well and made some great points about the roles of competence, sacrifice and disagreeableness in work…

She wasn't confused about anything. She was intentionally misrepresenting what he said.

Re: undefined

#32

Post by Fricken » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 2:25 AM UTC

api wrote: post #13

psyc wrote: post #5

I watched this interview the other day. It was infuriating. I mean, you expect today's journalists to be provocative, sure. But this interviewer relentlessly , and in the most hostile manner, misrepresented Peterson, put words in his mouth, and made sideways accusations. I don't know who she is, but if she's supposed to be any kind of serious journalist at all, she deserves to be called out for this. Most striking to…

I agree that the interview is awful, but consider what an interview with an advocate of social justice and equality would be like if it were given by one of many popular alt-right Youtubers. There are some incredibly hot button emotional issues under the surface here. It's very hard for most people to talk about any of this without going nuts.

I saw the interview yesterday, and my first reaction was similar to most, I found it infuriating.

After thinking about it, I'm glad she aligned herself with Peterson's most vitriolic critics, because it gave him a chance to address that vitriol head-on, and he did so successfully. Hopefully it served to draw some of those with polarized or ill-informed impressions of Peterson towards moderation.

I'm skeptical the host was actually as vicious as she made herself to be, that may have simply been a role she adopted for the interview.

Re: undefined

#33

Post by throwaway1748 » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 2:29 AM UTC

jules wrote: post #27

throwaway1748 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This interview really demonstrates the style of argumentation you see around these topics, just dialed up to 11. Practitioners of this form of argument intentionally mis-represent the other side to form a strawman argument. This works exceptionally well on Twitter, where someone quote-tweets their adversary, intentionally warping their words with the intention to shame. Some people have called this tactic "dunking on…

I don't think that tactic works poorly in that format at all, it's just that this person is incredibly good at defending against it. Very few people could withstand such an interview.

good point.

Re: undefined

#34

Post by dekhn » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 2:31 AM UTC

psyc wrote: post #5

I watched this interview the other day. It was infuriating. I mean, you expect today's journalists to be provocative, sure. But this interviewer relentlessly , and in the most hostile manner, misrepresented Peterson, put words in his mouth, and made sideways accusations. I don't know who she is, but if she's supposed to be any kind of serious journalist at all, she deserves to be called out for this. Most striking to…

So, I work in Silicon Valley, I'm pretty open minded, well educated, etc, etc. Over the past 5 years, much of Silicon Valley has been invaded by this kind of behavior. There has long been a bit of it (I went to a liberal arts university, UCSC, about 25 years ago), but it's really exploded.

Seeing this kind of misleading behavior, and the excessive message telegraphing, is a commonplace occurrence now. If you dare question it, you risk being fired.

The good news is, the last few months, I've started to see more moderate coworkers finally stand up to this type of person and say: "No. You can't keep dominating the social conversation. You're not the majority, your ideas are just one of many, experts are authorities for a reason, and yes, there are systemic problems, but using clickbait to whine about it isn't solving problems".

Re: undefined

#35

Post by ecdavis » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 3:44 AM UTC

Somewhere I saw Jordan Peterson saying that he spends a lot of time examining his arguments from all angles and trying to find fault with them. Many arguments we see in modern discourse are little more than a train of thought that sounds good but hasn't seen much scrutiny[0]. I've certainly been guilty of making such arguments, myself (some probably on this website). If I can make the comparison to software, it's like the difference between checking that an application works vs. actively trying to break or subvert it.

I took a class on critical thinking in university and I think it was one of the most important classes I took. I find myself breaking down a lot of what I read in the news and elsewhere and finding that it doesn't hold up to basic analysis. Unfortunately I don't think I was ever taught how to effectively turn that analysis back on myself (or perhaps an attempt was made but my teenage self ignored it).

Regarding the interview, I think it is best summarized by the lobster exchange towards the end. I was disappointed, as I would like to see Peterson challenged by someone who has done their research.

[0] Indeed, the linked article has arguments which fall into this category in places.

Re: undefined

#36

Post by quantumofmalice » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 3:48 AM UTC

I have become effectively alt-right (it is complicated, but for HN purposes it suffices), from a libertarian conservative, in the last two years, specifically because of behavior like that of this interviewer.

I no longer think it is possible to engage in dialog with people who think dialog is not possible. The punch-a-nazi meme, its acceptance across my social circles (including HN), the our-violence-is-speech-their-speech-is-violence talking points, etc. have pushed me to some very shocking and depressing conclusions.

Re: undefined

#37

Post by megaman22 » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 3:57 AM UTC

quantumofmalice wrote: post #36

I have become effectively alt-right (it is complicated, but for HN purposes it suffices), from a libertarian conservative, in the last two years, specifically because of behavior like that of this interviewer. I no longer think it is possible to engage in dialog with people who think dialog is not possible. The punch-a-nazi meme, its acceptance across my social circles (including HN), the our-violence-is-speech-their…

It's scary how effectively this sort of thing can push reasonable people towards the fringes. I've noticed the same somewhat disturbing tendency in myself and others who would otherwise be relatively centrist, but are disgusted at some of the antics and rhetoric villifying them.

Re: undefined

#38

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 4:00 AM UTC

ecdavis wrote: post #35

Somewhere I saw Jordan Peterson saying that he spends a lot of time examining his arguments from all angles and trying to find fault with them. Many arguments we see in modern discourse are little more than a train of thought that sounds good but hasn't seen much scrutiny[0]. I've certainly been guilty of making such arguments, myself (some probably on this website). If I can make the comparison to software, it's lik…

[deleted]

Re: undefined

#39

Post by RandomInteger4 » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 4:37 AM UTC

I'm pretty squarely in the progressive camp, but this interview was ridiculous. The interviewer was making numerous assumptions and wild assertions that didn't follow at all from what Peterson was saying. She was arguing with her pre-perception rather than arguing with him.

Re: undefined

#40

Post by Jach » Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 5:03 AM UTC

quantumofmalice wrote: post #36

I have become effectively alt-right (it is complicated, but for HN purposes it suffices), from a libertarian conservative, in the last two years, specifically because of behavior like that of this interviewer. I no longer think it is possible to engage in dialog with people who think dialog is not possible. The punch-a-nazi meme, its acceptance across my social circles (including HN), the our-violence-is-speech-their…

Would this not be analogous to becoming an atheist just because you don't like some of the practitioners of your faith? Or maybe another related faith?

What do you see as the way forward if dialog can't happen?