Again, you're trying to claim that I don't know anything. He can conduct all the research he wants, but I find it easy to disagree with many of his claims. For example... "Only the most creative person survives." -Most creative processes are run by groups in the professional world. TV, technology, marketing "Companies are run by conservatives." -Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk don't strike me as conservatives. "You need to have at least 10 people fail in the market before you can succeed." -wat "Lawyers are not creative." -I think lawyers have to be pretty creative "Creativity only arises in constraint." -What about painters and others who are not necessarily constrained? "Creativity ~ smarts" -What about children who know nothing? They are often very creative. They also often create without constraint. "Risky choices are foolish" -Expected Value Theorem says otherwise "People who work hard are different from people who are creative." -What about every forger ever? What about engineers? etc
This reminds me of the time where I got in an argument about why I associate my map names with a certain mood and color scheme. It took me like 5 minutes to explain cymbolism - which is word and color association - and why I have a holistic idea of what my map is going to feel like when I pick its name. By the end of it, I was left questioning whether I actually saw in color, or in black and white instead because I was ignoring other people's interpretations and pushing my "objective view" of what the map would be based on the word. Ya know, come to think of it, the fella I was arguing with kinda thought the same way. What was his name again...Sprinkles? Spankings? I can't remember...
I haven't watched the video so I don't have a leg in this (no pun intended). I just know you like to play devil's advocate lol
Oh. My. God. You are purposely making the claims made in the video to sound like all encompassing claims. They were not. This is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. When Jordan Peterson says that "conservatives run businesses" he is referring to trends in statistics which you refuse to look up. When Jordan Peterson says that "only the most creative person survives", he's referring to the high risk/high reward nature of being creative. Generally, creative people are either starving or at the top, and he talks about this directly in the video. When Jordan Peterson says that "Lawyers TEND to be creative", he is again obviously talking about trends (you can tell by the words he used. It's funny how that works, eh?) When Jordan Peterson says "creativity only arises in constraint", he is demonstrably right. Painters are constrained by paint and paintbrushes. We are always constrained, all the time, and you can purposefully constrain yourself even more to force out the creativity like the artist who only painted squares. And finally, the cherry on top. "Again, you're trying to claim that I don't know anything, when in fact I'm fairly well read on this topic." Haha, this is it! The logical fallacy you've been accusing me of utilizing at its finest! (Hint: claiming that you're well read as an argument against evidence isn't an argument at all, but a logical fallacy)
Again, I'm not saying that I'm right because I'm informed. But when you say I don't know anything about these statistics, you're wrong. Now you're headed on a semantic argument, where you're twisting his words to be true no matter what. Anyway, I just wanted to post a little of my response to the video. You don't have to like it, or agree with it.
Here, this should help. The Anecdotal Fallacy: Using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics. Seems familiar, huh?
No, I'm not twisting his words. Go back and read for God's sake. He literally says that LAWYERS TEND TO BE LOW IN OPENNESS. This isn't an all encompassing claim, this is is a fact as prescribed by non-controversial statistics that you refuse to look up while justifying your willful ignorance by just spouting off "I'm well read and it's my opinion!!!". Again, he said that lawyers TEND to be low in openness. How hard headed can one be?
Jesus ****. The original claim that your opinion (formed and supported by the comments made by your colleagues, apparent authorities on the subject of the psychology of creativity) has more objective value than the integration of vast impersonal experiences, experiments, observations conducted over thousands of man-hours over the decades is in itself an appeal to authority, and a far less well-defined one, at that. I could interpret the gnomic suggestion to "think like a child" when designing to mean one of two things: Either you are simplifying your thoughtprocesses down to a level where a child could understand it intuitively, which is a potential bucking of the cultural standards, but a strengthening of the biological standards of cognitive readability (itself shaped through thousands of years of cultural standards). Or, you are literally thinking with the mind of a "child", one which has no grasp of reason of standards, and therefore releases your designs from the boundaries of reality - again bucking the cultural standard for a time, but if you want them to be successful they will eventually have to connect to some kind of cultural/biological standard at some level, otherwise they will not connect with the audience. Either way, you can't get out of the need for some trait closeness in art, a trait open realm. Compare this vague suggestion that requires some trait closeness to implement properly with the statements of Peterson. Sure, he may be speaking without notes, for the 800th time in the past couple years, so he looks nonchalant, but there is so much more 'codified research' backing up his claims than yours (whose backing hinges entirely on an application of something Peterson talks about at length in other podcasts and lectures, meaning he's even done the legwork to understand that stuff too). Who is more believable? You have offered nothing of comparable rigor to back up your disbelief of the demonstrable evidence, save your apparent readings on the topic (which have gone unnamed, and unsourced). You seem to be holding out in an attempt to save face with your own opinion of yourself. In doing so you've managed to work up your opponent (who is not trying to fight you, but rather show you something, and understand why you have turned your nose up at it) into a bit of a temper, which you now seem to be employing as a measure of how right you are because you've managed to 'stay cool, dude', which consists of you doubling down unironically on your own appeal to authority and anecdotal fallacies. See my post on culinary trends for more of my thoughts.
I think lawyers are pretty creative That's all I'm saying. I know you like your statistics, but statistics are easily manipulated. And so is language. Again, you don't have to agree. --- Double Post Merged, Aug 9, 2017 --- My claim is NOT that my experience is more valuable than his. My claim is that I don't believe a lot of what he says. You can tell me about how much research people have put in, but that does not convince me. Many of these claims do not make sense to me, so I do not believe them. Again, I'll make the same point about conspiracy theories. You don't have to agree with me, but telling me over and over that there are statistics does not convince me. You also don't have to convince me.
And finally it devolves into this "opinion" drivel. You have made many claims and only backed them up with "it's my experience and I'm well read on the subject" which is a textbook fallacy. I'm done here.
I'm giving my response to the video based on my experience. I've provided context for my thoughts, and I would be surprised if they didn't ring true with others. That doesn't mean they must be true, but I believe my beliefs to be true. Again, you're welcome to disagree with me.
You are the one manipulating language. Creativity and Trait-Openness are two separate things. Trait-Openness may lead to more Creativity, but Creativity does not always imply a high level of Trait-Openness. Just because there is an argument to be made for the Creativity of certain people or what they have to do does not change the fact that in tons of tests it has come out that that group of people are low (ON THE AVERAGE) in the GENERAL TRAIT-OPENNESS linked to other professions. Just because your lawyer buddy can opt to put pickled peppers on his spiralized poutine at lunch time does not mean that he's like that all the time, and in every aspect of his life. I went over this - lawyers need to be organized, they need to have their nose to the grindstone almost all the time, and I challenge you to find me more than ten high-profile lawyers with a music career, who live in homes with less than 1 car, stairs, an attic // a 1-2 bedroom apartment somewhere in a slightly cheaper, but safe part of town. --- Double Post Merged, Aug 9, 2017 --- Why am I bothering? If you aren't arguing based on the truth, are you just doing it for shits and giggles? Are you actively trying to drain other people's time with stupid claims and hand-wave justification? Do you not actually see it, and think that you not arguing for the truth makes you right, because you think you're right and there is no truth in the matter?
He actually says in the video that trait openness and creativity are essentially the same. I've been using them synonymously. Uh if that's wrong then, my bad.
Good thing I don't know you in person or I'd completely ignore it and seethe alone in front of the TV