The death of a public intellectual • Hacker News Board

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#301

Post by ebiester » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

blueflow wrote: post #287

RationalDino wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are experiencing is called "the controversy bait-and-switch". Peterson is a master of it. What he does is say something designed to look like a dog whistle to get people upset. Then when challenged on it, he say something reasonable to pull in fans. Then he says something else which is designed to be misunderstood, and repeats. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwSDqJAum8&t=244s explains it, and shows an actu…

Ngl, its a big PITA if you say thing A, and some people understand A, B, C and D and then get mad at you for supporting D. This happened to me some times before and i absolutely hate it. Seeing your argument that its a baddy thing makes me feel very uneasy. And the "dog whistle" thing you mentioned is conceptually that, accusing someone of saying something they didn't exactly say. I hate this concept. How would someo…

Let's say you support A, but know that many supporters of A also support B, C, and think that A implies D. Detractors also know that an argument that A implies D.

If you are arguing for A, and you are versed in basic argumentation (as anyone in Peterson's situation is), it is reasonable to expect that you understand the landscape of the argument. As such, if you know that this will be used to discredit your argument, it is incumbent on you to say, "I am arguing for A. I define A as such. With that definition, I am not arguing for D or that A implies D." ___

As for dog whistles, you avoid having that problem by explicitly condemning the groups that use the dog whistle (if you indeed believe that group is wrong -- e.g. explicitly denouncing white nationalists), and by adjusting your argument to avoid any semblance of dog whistles as you learn about them.

Yes, it's more work, but this is the landscape of public discourse. Consider that minorities like Muslims have had to do this to the point of absurdity. (E.g. someone does not support the indiscriminate bombing of Palestinian hospitals and the withholding of substantial relief aid to Gaza, but that does not mean they support Hamas or its taking of hostages.)

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#302

Post by vkou » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

RationalDino wrote: post #278

blueflow wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What you are experiencing is called "the controversy bait-and-switch". Peterson is a master of it. What he does is say something designed to look like a dog whistle to get people upset. Then when challenged on it, he say something reasonable to pull in fans. Then he says something else which is designed to be misunderstood, and repeats. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwSDqJAum8&t=244s explains it, and shows an actu…

This is also called the "motte-and-bailey fallacy", and it's utterly insufferable.

It's the off-internet equivalent of 'I'm just trolling, bro, why do you haff to be mad ;)'

What confuses the matter further is that some of his advice is actually common-sense good-advice. He's not famous or controversial for giving that common-sense good-advice, though.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#303

Post by artimaeis » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:29 PM UTC

dralley wrote: post #283

JSavageOne wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing you just said disputes any of what Peterson has said. The fact that you mention him being a "drug addict" (he was briefly addicted to anti-depressants after his wife got cancer) and then use words like "whining" to try to discredit him without actually addressing or disputing anything he's said shows you just have an axe to grind with no substance.

>he was briefly addicted to anti-depressants That is a very severe understatement. He was so badly addicted to benzos (for years) that he ended up going to Russia to have himself put into a weeks-long medically-induced coma to go cold-turkey, which resulted in brain damage. (He insisted on that course of action, which Western doctors refused to go along with, for obvious reasons). That left him unable to walk or spea…

I think you've mixed up ketamine and klonopin (clonazepam).

https://newrepublic.com/article/156829/happened-jordan-peter...

Peterson was addicted to benzodiazepines, in specific he mentioned klonopin in his interview with New Republic.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#304

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:29 PM UTC

ebiester wrote: post #301

blueflow wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ngl, its a big PITA if you say thing A, and some people understand A, B, C and D and then get mad at you for supporting D. This happened to me some times before and i absolutely hate it. Seeing your argument that its a baddy thing makes me feel very uneasy. And the "dog whistle" thing you mentioned is conceptually that, accusing someone of saying something they didn't exactly say. I hate this concept. How would someo…

Let's say you support A, but know that many supporters of A also support B, C, and think that A implies D. Detractors also know that an argument that A implies D. If you are arguing for A, and you are versed in basic argumentation (as anyone in Peterson's situation is), it is reasonable to expect that you understand the landscape of the argument. As such, if you know that this will be used to discredit your argument,…

[deleted]

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#305

Post by bena » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:32 PM UTC

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…

The article isn't that long, they kind of address your criticism in there.

They're lamenting the fact that no matter the person, every person whose ideas they find fascinating becomes less fascinating the longer they consume their content.

They blame it on the fact that every subsequent idea is less researched and thought out than the one before because there is simply not enough time for them to have thought it out properly.

And it reminds me of something I heard once: 'Your first book/song/album/painting is the result of your entire life up to that point, your next is done in significantly less time.' Basically, until you actually provide a result, you have all the time you want to craft it exactly how you want it. But once you have a following, they will demand more from you and now you have an implied deadline.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#306

Post by Supermancho » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:32 PM UTC

louwrentius wrote: post #227

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…

Jordan Peterson is - according to his own admission - what a dumb person thinks an intellectual sounds like.

I would agree.

Peterson has helped me. That being said, Peterson is someone with a few good ideas that encompass a singular limited view of the world. It doesn't help with military maneuvers (or the world political theater at large), or dietary choices, or a host of other topics. It's not necessary for someone to have deep thinking applied to every topic, but that's an assumed, pre-requisite of an intellectual. Someone who is smart and has something valuable to say, primarily because it has been a focus in their lives, have repeatedly been asked to voice opinions. These opinions are inappropriately over-valued in the modern zeitgeist.

Asking Peterson about AI is silly. eg I wouldn't ask John Ousterhout, who is looking to formalize a process for creating "great programmers", about how to maximize my tax deductions.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#307

Post by ebiester » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:40 PM UTC

halbritt wrote: post #300

wsve wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me give a personal story about this guy, A while back, when I was just beginning therapy, my therapist recommended I take an online personality test, which unbeknownst to me, was authored by Jordan Peterson. After I took the test, it gave 5-7 paragraphs explaining what each individual personality trait meant. Pretty boilerplate, but for some traits, when you got further down the explanations, it started feeling l…

> Ah. So what we have here is, regardless of whether you agree it's true or not, a political agenda masquerading as a personality test. It's purpose is to argue Peterson's vocal political belief that the gender pay gap is not an issue, because women are biologically better at being nurses instead of engineers. His proof? Just look at those Scandinavians, they have completely solved sexism (citation needed) and still…

But what does that have to do with an online personality test?

You can make that argument without having it bleed into situations that are expected to be apolitical.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#308

Post by boringg » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:40 PM UTC

hfgjbcgjbvg wrote: post #179

boringg wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I'm with in theory. People are interesting for the most part. However the amount of work to reward you are describing is tantamount to pulling up hedgerows in zelda for coins. Your not likely to find anything amazing but maybe once in awhile interesting. Again probably depends on the establishment

Nah if you’re good at it. It can be amazing every time. But like anything, it feels like a lot of work before you get good at it.

Amazing every time? Wouldn't it get redundant?

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#309

Post by KittenInABox » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

migro23 wrote: post #277

KittenInABox wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not going to like, the definition of racism there makes sense to me. Racism being a set of racist policies resulting in inequality based on racist beliefs. I mean, how else do you describe what race-based slavery is? Slavery is a policy resulting in literal enslavement based on the idea of black people's inferiority. Like, compare this to ableism-- disabled people often are not allowed to get married because, in orde…

Do you see any problem in using the term you are trying to define in your definition of that term?

In the context of an entire presumed talk, conference, interview, panel, or whatever presumably about race and racism... nah not really lol. Dude only really has about a minute to respond, and he probably spent already at least 30-45 minutes about it. At some point if I ask a biologist after a discussion about biology what a biologist is, "a biologist studies biology" makes sense. If you go to an entire talk/convo/conference/whatever about a subject and still need someone to define the subject to you, idk man?

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#310

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 30, 2023, 5:45 PM UTC

ebiester wrote: post #301

blueflow wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ngl, its a big PITA if you say thing A, and some people understand A, B, C and D and then get mad at you for supporting D. This happened to me some times before and i absolutely hate it. Seeing your argument that its a baddy thing makes me feel very uneasy. And the "dog whistle" thing you mentioned is conceptually that, accusing someone of saying something they didn't exactly say. I hate this concept. How would someo…

Let's say you support A, but know that many supporters of A also support B, C, and think that A implies D. Detractors also know that an argument that A implies D. If you are arguing for A, and you are versed in basic argumentation (as anyone in Peterson's situation is), it is reasonable to expect that you understand the landscape of the argument. As such, if you know that this will be used to discredit your argument,…

[deleted]