Jordan Peterson interview on C4

20Cent wrote: »

What's your point?

This is like what Peterson does.lol

The point is (lol) how can one hold an opinion on a video without watching said video?

I watched that one and went off and watched a few more and read a little on him. Found him pretty OK and I noticed quite often he comes across as a nice man at the core. Of course he's a product of his own background as are we all, so there is that socially, spiritually, conservative, pre modernist* streak to him that gets filtered and focused through his opinions. And yes I personally would consider psychology one of the "softer" sciences, in the sense that much of is wide open and much of it based on pretty shaky, often self reported data(though I consider something like sociology as soft as a nonagenarian in a knocking shop). So much of it is and can only be opinion.

His set of opinions are often compelling to me anyway, from my admittedly brief gaze at it. He seems to be a major Jung fan. I would be myself, so that could be part of it. I have a vague rule when it comes to philosophy and philosophers and thinkers in general; if I can dismiss it as navel gazing fruity ballsology and subsequent readings confirm this, then for me it is ballsology(Jung's "other", Freud would fall into this category, as would Derrida, even Descarte. He was a pioneer and a wide ranging giant of a mind, but..). If I first dismiss it as navel gazing fruity ballsology, but subsequent readings reveal more than I thought and more readings again have my brain hurting with the level of thought behind it that I struggle to process, then that's a different matter. Plato would defo fall into this category for me - the sheer horsepower of the Greek lad's mind remains staggering even today - and so would Jung.

Though to make a clumsy comparison to computers(though I do not believe we operate that way) all the psychology and sociology theories are akin to the fancy graphic user interface reporting and tweaking, neuroscience is looking at the chip design, but there lays a vast gulf between those two disciplines.

But I digress. It's me. I've had a long week. Anyway, yeah. I don't buy the the 1970's Blank Slate hippy dippy idea of the mind, or gender. It;s demonstrably ballsology of the highest order. As for the Canadian chap, I do like anyone who can play their own riff well, with clear and consistent notes and he can. IN this interview she couldn't. Though if I were to try similar it would be akin to a hyper stream of consciousness Robin Williams sans the funny style. On barbiturates.



*thank christ as post modernism is almost entirely full of sh1te wherever it points its gaze.

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

By the by, I'm not sure Newman is particularly left wing her self.

That would have been my take too funny enough. I would have pegged her as centre right myself? An intelligent and ambitious person who worked her way to her position. She didn't get to where she is by being wishy washy.