Jordan Peterson

Last thread was soykafted upon until lazy moderator locked it instead of just punishing the purpetrators. New JP thread, young and fresh. The man, the myth, the legend. What do you think about his conflation of postmodernists and radical leftists? I think that is a bit charlatan thing to do but whatever, I think he got that from how the SJWs pertain to subjectivity and relativity of reality and "spectrum" of truth they always bring up.

>I think he got that from how the SJWs pertain to subjectivity and relativity of reality and "spectrum" of truth they always bring up. Are you talking about how a lot of those people value "lived experiences" and talk about that more than facts?

>>8600 I have seen a lot of people on the left talk about "spectrum" when talking about any topic at hand >"well, it aint black and white, there are shades of gray" >"there are spectrums of identity of gender and sexuality" I can't think of any more atm but "spectrum" seems to be their go-to word to appear intelligent and insightful but they are just pushing relativism and postmodernism... so I guess that is what Jordan was talking about?

>>8601 I only ask because outside of autism and sexuality, I've never heard anyone talk about a "spectrum". But I do know that a common argument style is, "My experience trumps reality" with people in general, especially younger people. "Spectrum" is a new one for me.

I decided to search about "lived experiences" it's a lot different from what I thought it was. The language these people come up with is confusing. Webm related, audio only.

>>8602 Why do experience and facts have to be opposed? Unless you assume people are just lying or are unreliable narrators(why do you assume that?) anecdotes are things that actually happened, and if you get enough anecdotes together it goes from anecdotal to statistical evidence. >>8601 well, there are shades of grey for anything except pure mathematics, and almost nothing can be analyzed in that way precisely. We have imperfect tools with which to quantify the world, putting too much trust in them is unscientific.

>>8604 Anecdotes can be extreme one offs that have nothing to do with reality or stats. That is why anecdotes and personal experiences are disregarded for anyone searching for truth of the matter.

>>8604 >Why do experience and facts have to be opposed? Unless you assume people are just lying or are unreliable narrators(why do you assume that?) anecdotes are things that actually happened, and if you get enough anecdotes together it goes from anecdotal to statistical evidence. Wow, I spent a bit of time trying to respond, but I'm struggling to really reply back to that. I brought a lot of past discussions while making that "my experience trumps reality" comment. But you are right, sure, you can make the claim that there are only two genders, as an example, but you can't claim that a person's experience is false unless you got evidence for it. There's too many terms.

>>8601 Although leftists use the the ideas of everything being a spectrum and relativism to make up things like 1000 genders, it's also wrong to oppose those notions based only on their misuse of the concept. If you have this reactionary (not in the sense of right wing but as a thoughtless reflex) outburst and result to pure black and white/objective thinking out of spite then you won't get far either. Thinking in terms of absolute good and absolute evil is just as childish as applying the concept of relativism to visibly binary things in an absolutist manner. I'll apply relativism and muh spectrum in some other way as an example: Both the left's and the right's understanding of morals is flawed. The left thinks that morals are relative and can be shaped because of social constructivism without consequences since there's no objective morality stopping them, while the right thinks that morals are objective and follow this Greek notion of universal Truth (which results in soykaf like Molymeme's Universally Preferable Behaviour). People seem to fluctuate between these binary understandings out of visceral reaction. A much better idea is that although morals are relative and there are no objectively good or bad things, what's subjectively moral to someone is outside of their control. Their morality stems from their essence, which varies from population to population and isn't universal in humans. In a way, morals and social customs are an expression of genes, and they can only be changed by violently and covertly suppressing their expression, or just demographic displacement. A side effect of suppressing morals (and living in an environment not in harmony with their essence - megacities) are mental conflicts which manifest themselves as deviant, unhealthy or otherwise masturbatory behaviour (as judged from the perspective of the person's essence which is not obfuscated by any voluntary or involuntary damage.) Why do you think our society's answer to depression is prescription SSRIs, instead of tackling the reason behind the depression? Modern psychiatry just treats depression, bipolar, schizophrenia etc. as inherent "chemical imbalances" that have appeared out of nowhere. Not once do they think that maybe living between synthetic cement blocks, wageslaving 9-5, getting their food from a faceless supermarket in exchange for monopoly money etc. is incompatible with the essences of most people.

>>8612 I believe, even though we didn't get there atm, that morality and politics can be extrapolated from humanity and environment just like science explains natural laws and behaviours. I know it sounds dumb, but at least that way we will get a clear understanding of genetics, sociology and psychology behind morality and how we structure ourselves and then make a system suited for all people. This, in the word "essence" of your word, is the truth, and ONLY TRUTH, that exists to question of objective morality and how politics should go about. Are there multiple "truths" for multiple different demographics? Yes Could we unify those truths into one like we are trying to do with 4 natural forces in our universe? Maybe? But, I have an inkling that in about 1000 years time this truth will shine through and people will rearrange themselves VOLUNTARILY because it will be most beneficial for them. That is why, at the deepest sense, I think this baloney of "spectrums" and "shades of gray" is just murking up the water to make us not try getting to that absolute truth.

>>8612 >The left thinks that morals are relative and can be shaped because of social constructivism without consequences since there's no objective morality stopping them I'd like to point out that most leftists don't actually think that. If you asked most lefties what their morals are, they'd probably say something akin to humanism or utilitarianism.

>>8605 >Anecdotes can be extreme one offs that have nothing to do with reality or stats. If you use a frequentist approach to statistics, it's very rare that a rare thing happens, but it still can happen. If you observe many one-offs and outliers, it's a sign that your statistical model of the situation is flawed.

>>8616 The problem with anecdotal evidence is that both people who had the most frequent experience and extreme one-offs think their anecdotal evidence trumps others. Why not, instead of using your "personal experience" as an argument go around and gather experience of 1000 people and average them out? What you suggest is the latter, taking more and more experiences and averaging them. What most leftists do is just say "my personal experience" or "as far as I have seen".

>>8617 But everyone does that. You only know the data you've looked at, and you tend to look at data that supports your conclusions. This is for anecdotal and statistical evidence alike. Cognitive biases happen to everyone, even people who are aware of them.

>>8619 >and you tend to look at data that supports your conclusions Political surveys? BIASED Sociological studies? BIASED EVERYONE IS BIASED AAAAAAAAA that is how you sound

>>8620 Im saying *you're* biased. A survey is usually designed to avoid bias. A person reading a survey and drawing conclusions from is not.

>>8621 >everyone who interprets reality is doing so subjectively Just like every physicist and mathematician too, right? Is that why rockets work? Jesus man, you're digging for it.

>>8622 The difference is you aren't a physicist or mathematician, and not all fields of study are as hard and cold as physics anyway.

>>8622 How can you not have heard about the "theory of relativity"?

>>8622 Plenty of mathematicians and physicists are complete nutters. There are people who are very good mathemticians otherwise who believe the integers are bounded. It's hard to argue with them because when you get down to it, they have different ideas of what is important and what is "real" in math than you do and there's no way to make them see otherwise with only mathematical arguments. Anyway, that's not relevant to the discussion. We were talking about stuff like statistics and this supposed knowable objective reality that is independent of lived experience. Ignoring the philosophical and political arguments to be had about that, every single person in the world who has ever read a news article or looked up a statistic was probably prey to cognitive bias. My point is that *you are not an exception*. Neither am I. Please keep that in mind.

>>8625 Trolling is an artform, and you're still using crayolas.

I don't understand why the people who sabotaged our security and NN efforts are still allowed to be here promoting more bullsoykaf grifters like JP to be honest

>>8637 What's the connection to this guy?

>>8638 It's the same half dozen right wing people trying to recruit here every time there is an even semi political board. Before we lost the earlier boards it was trying to get people for their youtube channels and soykafting up laintracker with alt right\MRA stuff. Then came all the 2016 stuff and them spreading FUD here about NN. Every new grift that pops up with that crowd inevitably ends up here where the threads get locked because of the arguments with people actually here for lain.

>>8635 A artform*

I grok his pragmatist-centrist politics, but he loses me with his Christian spirituality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas BTFO

>>8624 Firstly, how do you know? Secondly, we are getting there Just wait a sec and almost all fields of study will come closer and closer to objective truth

>>8663 you're the opposite of me lol

>>8665 >Just wait a sec and almost all fields of study will come closer and closer to objective truth how? Seriously. There hasn't been any definitive advancement in the field of philosophy since the fundamental questions of that field were formulated, for instance. They are all, in some sense, open questions, and always have been. And even just physics is so complex and chaotic, extrapolating that to objective truth about, say, sociology is practically intractible. You're trying to understand how an incredibly complex dynamical system(the human body) interacts with other systems of similar nature in real-world environments. You can't make anything past vague guesses at that point. The belief that somehow we will someday get to "the ultimate idea" or objective truth is just some bullsoykaf Hegelian/Marxist march of history stuff.

Whatever you think of his politics, you gotta admire his media machine. The guy pretty much single handedly dominates youtube, just search for any kind of social/political/philosophical subject and his name pops up. A buddy of mine made this tool to see how foar a given video is from one of Jordan Peterson's: https://jumpstojp.tools.eticlab.xyz/ Brands be wishin' they had SEO like he do

>>8670 Oh shush it Just look how far humanity has come in last 2000 years and realize that we are going at exponential rate now, meaning 200 years at most and early 2000s will look like caveman times. >"brain is too complex" And yet humanity isn't stopping on the path of trying to understand it. If you have a reason why we should stop, please do say it. Otherwise stop being a naysayer and step aside.

>>8672 >le "how many times do you have to click on wikipedia refference page until you come to WW2 Germany/Hitler" xD Yea, "your friend" *ahem*, you is dumb. It has nothing to do with SEO and it is just about controversy and political focal points. Also, SEO doesn't matter in age of neural net style of video recommendations. Literally nobody can tell you with a straight face that they know the secret sauce to get your video recommended more often. Not even youtube engineers, because algorithm is in neural net that is always changing to maximize ad revenue.

>>8673 >Just look how far humanity has come in last 2000 years and realize that we are going at exponential rate now, meaning 200 years at most and early 2000s will look like caveman times. it's logistical growth. A pattern commonly found in nature. Moore's Law is already busted, other growth rates are soon to follow. We're not having such an easy time developing better engines, better pesticides, better antibiotics any more. >If you have a reason why we should stop, please do say it. Otherwise stop being a naysayer and step aside. not saying we should stop. Just saying it's silly to think that eventually everything will be objectuve truth. >>8674 neural nets are a lot more static than a lot of people think. They're not "continually adapting" they're just getting more training data and the engineers who almost certainly *do* know what is going on are tweaking hyperparameters.

>>8675 >neural nets are a lot more static than a lot of people think. They're not "continually adapting" they're just getting more training data and the engineers who almost certainly *do* know what is going on are tweaking hyperparameters. The underlying point is still valid. Your content is not the only input to the new age recommendation engines therefor your control over the outcome is limited.