Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The death of a public intellectual

thmsmlr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 374 posts

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#231

Post by britzkopf »

michpoch wrote: post #77

> The story goes something like this, I get recommended a clip on YouTube, there’s a man who is calm, articulate, and says something that completely violates the narrative. How fascinating. Is my understanding of the world completely wrong?! I need to read everything this man written. I think author understanding of the world is not wrong, but his approach - definitely. He expects to find some "wise man" who would ha…

I'd agree, but then the number of people that I meet who are otherwise intelligent and thoughtful, but have a casual, uncritical belief in the ability for Elon Musk to lead humanity forward on multiple fronts is shocking. Have you ever heard of the "all in" podcast?

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#232

Post by jimmydddd »

michpoch wrote: post #77

> The story goes something like this, I get recommended a clip on YouTube, there’s a man who is calm, articulate, and says something that completely violates the narrative. How fascinating. Is my understanding of the world completely wrong?! I need to read everything this man written. I think author understanding of the world is not wrong, but his approach - definitely. He expects to find some "wise man" who would ha…

A cousin of mine in her 20's has a podcast. I listened in on one and was surprised to hear that whe was giving out financial and investing advice. For context, she lives with her husband in his childhood bedroom with her inlaws, and works two or three days a week as a health professional. She has virtually no savings or investments, relies on her inlaws for food, and has an expensive Jeep on a 6 year loan. Interesting to think that folks are listening to her advice as though she is an expert.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#233

Post by barrysteve »

mjburgess wrote: post #101

I'm not seeing a very sympathetic analysis of this. This phenomenon is as old as time, with Socrate's students hanging on his every word. In my view its an entirely reasonable thing: you encounter a person who can articulate a coherent ideology, method, system (etc.) which is entirely new to you. You use that person as a means of learning this system; and when you've learnt it all, you move on. The key thing is you a…

Some people fall into careers where they have one hammer and use it forever.

You can see it on youtube for channels to be setup on a sole concept and then the creator drives it home forever.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#234

Post by migro23 »

migro23 wrote: post #222
Kye wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not knowing anything about him, do you think I should weigh a 2 minute off the cuff answer in a Q&A segment over what I might find in the 320 page book ubermonkey suggested? The framing of the video is plainly and severely biased, so I have to be suspicious about editing and what context or expansion/correction I might find in a longer clip, plus how the framing itself affects my own interpretation. edit: Having read…

Granted a book can contain much more context that might help the author save face but claiming that the "framing of the video is plainly and severely biased" is tenuous. Why? Because the clip was self contained, It contained 1 question "Please give your definition of racism" and 1 answer that was a definition of racism that was self referential. You could claim he mis-spoke but c'mon, here's a guy who wrote a book ab…

"Humans aren't robots. They aren't flawless. Every prolific public speaker messes up and says something that's complete nonsense while trying to collect the right word."

Competely agree, what's jarring is that he is replying to a simple question asking to define something that is literally the focal point of his intellectual career. It is possible that he just messed up and said something that as you say was 'complete nonsense'. But for me a simple accident is not the most likely reason given the context.

"Surely this isn't the first time he's been asked this question on camera if it's such an important part of his persona. Why this clip? If he consistently defines it poorly, that's one thing. I can't take what could be his worst attempt to define it as normal."

Fair enough, can you source any other examples of him defining racism?

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#235

Post by jlos »

virtualritz wrote: post #211

It's noteworthy but sadly not surprising[1], that someone like Peterson is listed as an 'intellectual'. This man talks like ChatGPT when asked to clad a text of the most basic ideas, frequently completely missing the point, into sophisticated-sounding language. The other names tell me nothing; but having the former in the list kept me from looking up the latter. [1] https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellec…

So you would not consider someone who has the following CV an intellectual?

- Has published or co-authored over 100+ academic papers in multiple fields

- Has h-index of 41, i10-index of 77, with 21,000 citations [0]

- Taught at Harvard

- Tenured Professor at the largest University in Canada

- 20+ year clinical practice

- Best selling author with over 5 million copies sold

You don't have to like his ideas, but if this doesn't qualify as "intellectual" not sure what else does.

[0]: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#236

Post by dralley »

blueflow wrote: post #228
virtualritz wrote: post #211

It's noteworthy but sadly not surprising[1], that someone like Peterson is listed as an 'intellectual'. This man talks like ChatGPT when asked to clad a text of the most basic ideas, frequently completely missing the point, into sophisticated-sounding language. The other names tell me nothing; but having the former in the list kept me from looking up the latter. [1] https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellec…

95% of times when i hear about Peterson, its someone trying to discredit him. Then i go to Youtube, search for what Peterson said about $topic, and can't find shit that i would even bother about. This stuff is getting creepy. Where is all the dislike coming from?

Why do people ever dislike public figures? Why do people dislike Dr. Oz or Dr. Phil or Jake Paul?

Peterson is / was a drug addict that gives mediocre-at-best self-help advice, who also goes around whining about wokeness and saying hateful things, while somehow keeping a large audience and grifting them for millions of dollars. As far as public figures go, it's fairly typical for such a person to invite antipathy.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#237

Post by amazingman »

blueflow wrote: post #228
virtualritz wrote: post #211

It's noteworthy but sadly not surprising[1], that someone like Peterson is listed as an 'intellectual'. This man talks like ChatGPT when asked to clad a text of the most basic ideas, frequently completely missing the point, into sophisticated-sounding language. The other names tell me nothing; but having the former in the list kept me from looking up the latter. [1] https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellec…

95% of times when i hear about Peterson, its someone trying to discredit him. Then i go to Youtube, search for what Peterson said about $topic, and can't find shit that i would even bother about. This stuff is getting creepy. Where is all the dislike coming from?

If 5% of the time the discrediting is legitimate, then that should be enough to generate dislike for the man. If the 5% was rhetorical and it's really 0%, then you're not actually paying attention for reasons you should investigate. JBP is not a well man. Not physically, not morally, not ethically, and not spiritually.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#238

Post by andrewflnr »

xorcist wrote: post #103
andrewflnr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you can personally verify all the facts about biology, physics, and distant places that you rely on to make decisions every day, then you can throw stones about arguments from authority. The rest of us use a little bit of faith.

Too much reductionism can be a dangerous thing. This is pretty much the Sophist argument and it is not enough to build a scientific foundation on. No, you don't need to personally verify all facts. But you need to be able to observe several indepedent validations. Yes, somewhere you have to take someone's word for fact, but multiple independent observations is a close approximation to the perfect scientific method. R…

Yes, balance is needed. But you're not really disputing my thesis, either.

There continue to be no shortcuts to truth.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#239

Post by LudwigNagasena »

varnaud wrote: post #226
s1artibartfast wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you like him then?

For the things he says. I'd encourage you to look for criticism of him online. He his the obligatory subject of plenty of video essayist on Youtube, it's kind of a meme at this point.

Being a video essayist is a meme. Watching criticism of Peterson on YouTube is an even bigger waste of time than watching Peterson.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#240

Post by amazingman »

Kye wrote: post #230
migro23 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Granted a book can contain much more context that might help the author save face but claiming that the "framing of the video is plainly and severely biased" is tenuous. Why? Because the clip was self contained, It contained 1 question "Please give your definition of racism" and 1 answer that was a definition of racism that was self referential. You could claim he mis-spoke but c'mon, here's a guy who wrote a book ab…

Humans aren't robots. Every prolific public speaker messes up and says something that's complete nonsense while trying to collect the right words. Surely this isn't the first time he's been asked this question on camera if it's such an important part of his persona. Why this clip? If he consistently defines it poorly, that's one thing. I can't take what could be his worst attempt to define it as normal on this clip a…

He defines racism loosely enough to paint white babies as racist. Indeed, he wrote a board book on it! Beyond parody.
Post reply on HN