I think that you are treating everything this guy says as fact. It might be well-researched, but that doesn't make it fact. To say that someone must be right because they "know more about it than you do" is actually considered one of the logical fallacies. You said you're not interested in my opinion, which I believe is because I preface my sentences with "I think." I do this because I want to speak with respect to what I know, and so I don't claim something as fact, when it might not be. This is something that your champion does not do--he states all of his claims as though they are fact, and I do not believe that they are fact. When you're listening to him, you're listening to his opinion. It's no different.
Truth is we really don't know anything at all. If everyone truly understood humans the world would be a vastly different place.
Hello I recently bought my son a playstation 360. I was looking at Halo, my son really likes him. Will Halo Chief Compilation work on the playstation 360? What about Nintendo. He really likes Nintendo. Will Nintendo work on the playstation 360? Let me know.
And we now work our way towards what the problem with Post-Modernism is. Imagine you're hungry. Imagine your whole tribe is hungry, and you're the cook. Now, instead of cooking food, or eating berries, you decide you're going to mix it up and do something cool and 'new' - something 'open' that those squares who normally cook food won't try. Imagine you say to yourself "I'm gonna buck ALL the trends and the traditions, and the old reasoning". You say "I'll turn it on it's head entirely!" So dinnertime comes along, and depending on how committed you are to destroying the trends, you'll end up with one of the following meals: - smashed lettuce with battered deer rectum over a bed of granite, served with a cup of lukewarm ant paste (1) - a basket of fruits and vegetables that have gone rotten dumped on the ground behind the chieftain's tent, urinated on (2) - your own feces (3) - no meal at all, instead killing yourself with a slow ingestion of poisonous flowers because 'that'll show the tribe leader for making me the cook, that bastard!!!!! he's stolen everything from me' (4) - you scream gibberish and run off into the forest (5) An analysis: (1) is still quite similar to a meal, though it has some inedible elements - it is served to the tribe, and therefore maintains the most traditional elements of the 'meal' (2) still food, but mostly inedible, poisoned, and hidden from the hungry tribe - not really a meal, but still plays on the basic formula because it is prepared, served, and found somehow (3) literal ****, will kill you and your tribe, but still served and ingestible somehow (4) you are still presenting the tribe with something, though it was not what they expected - creative, though still retains the meta-meal characteristics of serving something, though rather distasteful (5) you've done it! eliminated all cultural standards from your meal! though people will still interpret it as a form of meta meal, in the sense that they have been served a lunatic for a cook by the chief, of that some dastardly deed has been served to the cook or the tribe as a whole. There is NO ESCAPE. Haha I was born there, buddy-o! My dad got a roast beef sandwich at Izzies to celebrate. But no, I live in Westwood right now, close but no cigar lol --- Double Post Merged, Aug 9, 2017 --- Nice duplicate :^)
Dude. Come one. I'm not treating what he says as fact (even though they are practically facts) I have arrived at the same conclusion as he did as a result of the overwhelming evidence to support our perspective. If you wish to advance any thought process, you have to settle on things like the big 5 personality traits, which have a ridiculous amount of evidence to back them up (more so than almost any other scientific conclusion). Otherwise you can't get anywhere and you will stay stuck on semantics like all of your posts so far. This is the only way any idea can advance. And yes, it's a logical fallacy to use someones merit alone as a justification for an Idea. However, that's not what I did. Directly after touching on Jordan Petersons merit, I pointed you to where you could find the citations and studies. You are purposely ignoring half of my posts to make a point, and that's (partially) why I'm no longer interested in arguing with you. In any case, you've already said that you're not interested in looking this up, so there's really nowhere else to go with this. Jordan Peterson has made claims with an insane amount of evidence and non-controversial statistics to back them up, and you've called him a bullshitter. Forgive me when I say I don't think you have offered the most compelling argument.
I'm not trying to have a semantic argument, I'm trying to be as clear as possible. The only thing I wanted to say was that: 1. I don't believe most of what this guy says (see earlier post for specifics). 2. It's still an interesting talk. 3. That's it. You can tell me about all the research he is done, but that doesn't change my opinion. Remember, it would be a fallacy to claim that he must be right because he is knowledgeable. Is he even knowledgeable? I don't believe in the big 5 personality traits. I at least believe that many people are combinations of these. I think that the way he classifies these limits people to belong to one of these huge categories of how people think and act, and I think that people are much more complex than that. How do you define "evidence?" What does it mean for there to be evidence for the 5 personality traits? Just because people can describe how people may tend to act does not mean that they are limited to those 5 traits, or that they are exclusive, as this guy claims. I'm pretty sure I don't have to settle on this notion in order to "advance any thought process," as you say. When I say it's a fallacy, I'm referring to earlier, when I said I don't believe what this guy says, and you said something like my opinion doesn't count. I saw that you said I could find more studies, and I replied that I wasn't interested. Like I said, I'm just stating my thoughts--not trying to shatter your world or anything. My professional field is creative, and I frequently read books, read articles, watch lectures, and speak with other professionals in my field, or related, about these same topics, so I don't think that I'm ignorant of the topic. I find a lot of inconsistencies in what he says versus other things I've heard, or seen for myself. In any event, like I said, I'm just stating my thoughts. We don't have to agree on anything. Call him a bullshitter was not the meat of my argument, that was just the punchline.
Okay. You have the wrong idea about almost all of this. First of all, I literally never said that your opinion doesn't count. I said that your opinion is based on nothing but your own view of the world, while Petersons is based on irrefutable evidence. To assume that your view of the world is complete and won't evolve to the point of refusing to even look up the citations for what Peterson says is extremely naive and pretentious to say the least. You can disagree all you like, but at least look into the perspective before completely dismissing it. Second of all, there is no strict rule-set for a human being, and I stated this in like the first reply. Please stop ignoring half of the things I say. There are only trends, and the personality traits (which each have subsections) outline these trends. For example, Lawyers tend to be low in trait openness. This isn't an opinion. This isn't a subjective observation. This is hard evidence that you can either attempt to disprove, or concede to. You can still disagree with his premises if you like, but you can't just ignore evidence by calling it opinion when it is anything but. Third of all, you absolutely do have to arrive at some sort of conclusion before an Idea can progress. I'm not even referring to this case specifically. This is the basis of every scientific study ever. Then you end your post by talking about your own qualifications? Isn't that the logical fallacy that you just falsely accused me of using? Sigh. So far what I've taken from this is that you have a different opinion and that Jordan Peterson is talking nonsense. The first part I can deal with, but the second part? Not really. If you're prepared to make claims like that, at least have the dignity to defend your position instead of just calling whoever you disagree with a bullshitter.
My opinion has a basis. I have beliefs based on what I've seen and read, and so does Peterson. Peterson has done research, but many of the claims he makes do not seem valid, and many more I do not believe to be true. Like I said, conspiracy theorists also a lot of research, but I frequently do not believe their claims either. You said people are more complex, but Peterson didn't in this lecture. You keep talking about this "mountain of evidence," but I am still skeptical. I purposely brought up issues I had with his claims that did not require specific research to this field, but that anyone can observe. Saying that evidence exists also is kind of meaningless. It should be used to back a claim up, and the few times that he has backed his claims up, they still sound like bogus to me. Claims like "only the most creative person survives" are very disagreeable. What idea are we progressing? You're wanting me to progress this 5 personality trait idea, but I cannot believe in this for the reasons I had brought up earlier. I'm conveying my thoughts on the lecture, not trying to conduct a scientific process with these posts. When I bring up my experience, I'm only trying to show you that my opinions do have a basis.
Yes, exactly. Your only basis is your own experience. Jordan Petersons basis is the evidence which you refuse to look up yet keep questioning. Do you not see the difference? "You said people are more complex, but Peterson didn't in this lecture." My god this is getting frustrating. Watch his other videos. Look up his universities website. Read almost any source on the "big 5" in psychology. Nobody even comes close to making the claim that we all only have one trait. Literally nobody has made that claim. Why do you think there are subsections? Of course it's because humans are incredibly complex and varying creatures. Just go back and listen. Jordan didn't say "all laywers are low in trait openness", no, he said that "lawyers tend to be low in trait openness." There is a massive difference. You're arguing against an idea that nobody holds, and it's pretty tiring at this point. "You keep talking about this "mountain of evidence," but I am still skeptical. I purposely brought up issues I had with his claims that did not require specific research to this field, but that anyone can observe." Well if you're skeptical, then look up the citations I offered you and make an argument against them! Oh, that's right. You have refused to do any research, yet you make claims against these Ideas. I don't know where we can go from this. "What idea are we progressing? You're wanting me to progress this 5 personality trait idea, but I cannot believe in this for the reasons I had brought up earlier. I'm conveying my thoughts on the lecture, not trying to conduct a scientific process with these posts." You haven't made a single argument based on evidence outside of your own undeveloped experiences. Jordan Peterson has. Again, you're assuming that you already have this all figured out even to the point of refusing to do any research. How pretentious can one get?