Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson - what just happened? (diskuse)

[Bystroushaak]

I've decided that in order to practice my English skill, I will write from time to time blogs in English. Also in the light of the Umírá abíčko? (odpověď v textu) trends, and because I want to discover and get familiar with properties of the notion.so (warning, referral link) platform, I've decided to try to use different host for my blogs: Bystroushaak's blog.

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

Cool! Thanks you!

[_]

such an empty and useless article - after reading it, I still have no idea who are those persons and what they talked about

[Bystroushaak]

And I have no idea why you don't follow the links at the end of my blogpost, if you want to know more. Also I think that you completely missed the point of the blog, but whatever.

[alkoholik]

Peterson with subtitles.

[_]

I do not want to follow links or watch videos, the basic information should be in the article

[Petr]

Souhlas, článek je vo hovně.

[Bystroushaak]

I do not want to follow links or watch videos, the basic information should be in the article

I don't see a point of rewriting wikipedia for lazy fucks like you. You are not the target audience. Deal with it.

[_]

I do not see a point of writing empty blog articles like this. The only target audience is your narcissistic ego. Try harder and write something useful. Or go fuck yourself.

[Bystroushaak]

Right. So you don't see a point of writing blogs where you are not target audience and you feel the need to tell me what a shitty job I did, but I have a narcissistic ego. I mean, man, even you should be able to see the projections you are making.

[_]

If I were doing anything for my ego, narcissistic or not, I would have to log in. It is rather hard to please an anonymous ego.

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

Exactly, it's similar to how people sometimes say "don't ask for a tl;dr, don't be lazy and read the f***ing article".

This argument is just stupid, a summary often gives you all the information you need or helps you decide whether it's worth spending time reading the full article.

Mr. Bystroushaak posted two "related links" but why risk wasting time clicking on them? A short summary would give me some indication on whether this is something I might find interesting or valuable. In this day and age, people won't just open any random link you give them, because the "reward" is a random variable with low expected value, people tend to avoid uncertainty. For example, here's an interesting paper, let's discuss!

[Bystroushaak]

I have my reasons.

One is, that I can't really explain to you who Jordan B. Peterson is in any sufficiently short summary that would mean anything. Maybe 50kB article would scratch the surface, but probably not. Off-course I can write some not-really-meaning-anything phrase like "prominent Canadian intellectual and clinical psychiatrist", but that's just empty words, like saying that "computers use silicon to switch electricity". What does that tell you about wonders computers are capable to do, and how important they are, and how they shape our civilization? Absolutely nothing. It would be futile, because if you already don't know, you won't really understand (from the short summary).

I can see your point and I would behave differently, if I actually wanted to manipulate you into watching the debate. For example, if I was directly interested in profits from views. But I just wanted to give my friends possibility to learn something new, so I opened notion, typed the short introduction and published it. It took me like ten minutes. Later I was toying with notionapi and thought; hmm, why not t make it into blogpost on abclinuxu to generate some traffic and try to help to wake it up from the zombie state it is falling into? And so I did that.

[_]

The problem is that even a semi-skilled writer, using the same amount of bits, characters and time, would be able to convey the essential information. About a person, computers in our society, whatever. The rest of your chatter is just excuses, smoke and mirrors.

[Bystroushaak]

There seems to be some kind of miscommunication, as I thought that I made clear that I don't care about your opinion several times before. Let me rephrase it:

I fart in your general direction. You don't have my respect. I don't care what you think about me or what I do. You mean nothing to me, and your opinion is not valued.

[_]

And should it matter to me? I do not care about your defensive chatter. I just tagged this article as a piece shit, it is not my business to make you interested (or even educated). Reviews are not for authors, at least not primarily.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

You could have posted what Peterson did do. Wikipedia and encyclopedias in general work that way.

[Bystroushaak]

Yeah, and I could have written book about him. I mean, sorry, this blog is just pointer to the debate. It is not introduction to people who had it, to topics and concepts they debated, or to history of philosophy. If you want such information, just click on the links at the end, or use wikipedia/google.

That said, I can see that there is ask for such introduction and will consider writing something on this topic.

[marbu]

Yeah, it just assumes that you already know who Peterson is, so few lines about that wouldn't hurt. But otherwise the article is quite good, the main point here is to convey that such debate exists, and besides that it gives you description of the way debate is held and some references so that you can decide whether to check it yourself or not.

[JS1]

Yeah, it is surprising that in age of smartphones people can sit through a 4-hour debate.

I didn't see the debate, but I read and liked the 2nd link.

I find the topic a bit boring, I am not sure Jungian view can be considered to be a scientific theory. And frankly, the biggest issues in ethics always involve more than one person, so if the debate focused on how one person makes their moral decisions rather than on how multiple people can agree on what is moral, then it will never be very interesting.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

Yeah, it is surprising that in age of smartphones people can sit through a 4-hour debate.

It's not that surprising to me. The topic is a very popular and contentious one, especially in the US. The format is also very appealing to US viewers, they generally love "duels" of preachers / intellectual authorities.

I find the topic a bit boring, I am not sure Jungian view can be considered to be a scientific theory. And frankly, the biggest issues in ethics always involve more than one person, so if the debate focused on how one person makes their moral decisions rather than on how multiple people can agree on what is moral, then it will never be very interesting.

+1, good point.

I haven't watched the debate either, but from the description as well as from the description of The Moral Landscape it seems to be a re-iteration of the age-old "science vs religion" meme, which IMO is of a questionable validity in the first place, and in any case, the debate would be only interesting to me if either of those guys arrived at some kind of a novel insight capable of changing their views dramatically, which doesn't seem to be the case.

[Bystroushaak]

It's not that surprising to me. The topic is a very popular and contentious one, especially in the US. The format is also very appealing to US viewers, they generally love "duels" of preachers / intellectual authorities.

What I find most interesting about this debate is that it wasn't duel.

I haven't watched the debate either, but from the description as well as from the description of The Moral Landscape it seems to be a re-iteration of the age-old "science vs religion" meme, which IMO is of a questionable validity in the first place, and in any case, the debate would be only interesting to me if either of those guys arrived at some kind of a novel insight capable of changing their views dramatically, which doesn't seem to be the case.

It was more on the topic of how much stories shape our world views. Harris began from the angle that scientific revolution and social progress will be guiding the society towards better times. Peterson opposed that people can't derive meaning from this and need stories and archetypes. Really interesting part was debate how much are archetypes built into human mental framework.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

What I find most interesting about this debate is that it wasn't duel.

I know it wasn't, but I'd still guess the people perceive it that way and/or had perceived it that way before they attended.

It was more on the topic of how much stories shape our world views. Harris began from the angle that scientific revolution and social progress will be guiding the society towards better times. Peterson opposed that people can't derive meaning from this and need stories and archetypes. Really interesting part was debate how much are archetypes built into human mental framework.

Well, scientific revolution already is providing "better times" to society as well as bringing in its set of negative side effects which need to be acounted for. And so the question seems mostly moot to me. As for archetypes, honestly, I regard the whole concept as a load of voodoo. From where I'm standing people debating archetypes might as well go ahead and debate horoscopes next...

But that's just me and I'm pretty sure the insights I find interesting are probably uninteresting or downright dumb to others, which is fair...

[Bystroushaak]

Well, scientific revolution already is providing "better times" to society as well as bringing in its set of negative side effects which need to be acounted for.

Yeah, this was one of the points Harris made. Peterson countered with argument that science doesn't give your life meaning. Religion can make you feel like your life has meening, although he seems to direct people towards concept of responsibility (towards yourself, your family, your community), which can give you at least as good meaning as religion.

I think that he has a point and whole reason people listen to him is that because he offers alternative to religion. And I personally think that it really is better alternative. People who take care of themselves and people around them and derive meaning from responsibility seems like ideal neighbors.

And so the question seems mostly moot to me. As for archetypes, honestly, I regard the whole concept as a load of voodoo. From where I'm standing people debating archetypes might as well go ahead and debate horoscopes next...

Oh, not at all! It is actually one of the first things you learn when you try to write a story. People understand archetypes naturally and can actually have problems with story where there are none. It is not just only component, but it is like instant hotsauce, which makes everything better with only little overhead.

See for example: Every Story is the Same, or What makes a hero? - Matthew Winkler.

I personally kind of hate this because most of the people use pattern too obviously. But I can't even remotely deny, that there is great power in archetypes. Lately, I have been thinking about how to write story without any archetypes and found it incredibly difficult. You have to entertain people differently, for example show them interesting descriptions, or create tension where there is actually none just by using clever language tricks. I personally think that one of the most underestimated technique is to play on curiosity. This can be seen mostly in the older books, for example in the Rendezvous with rama, or books by Troska, where he defined whole interesting world of strangely working electricity, or in works by Jules Verne (I recently added Robur the Conqueror into my ebook reader just to see what techniques he used).

But that's just me and I'm pretty sure the insights I find interesting are probably uninteresting or downright dumb to others, which is fair...

I can only suggest to watch the linked debate. At least give it a try.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

Religion can make you feel like your life has meening, although he seems to direct people towards concept of responsibility (towards yourself, your family, your community), which can give you at least as good meaning as religion.

I think that he has a point and whole reason people listen to him is that because he offers alternative to religion. And I personally think that it really is better alternative. People who take care of themselves and people around them and derive meaning from responsibility seems like ideal neighbors.

I don't believe there's a clear line between the two. In fact, "responsibility" in this context probably encompases a whole philosophical system that pontentially overlaps with religion in general or other quasi-religious and non-religious philosophical systems.

Aside: For example notice that in christianity the responsibility towards one's family is a top value emphasized heavily in both testaments, although the implications of that are probably somewhat different that what you'd like and this isn't me promoting christianity, it's just an observation.

Note that responsibility in and of itself really provides no guidance. You need a system of values to complement it in order to know what to be responsible about and to discern which calls for responsibility are just and which aren't. And in fact, a similar thing is true of religion, otherwise we wouldn't be able to compare/judge religions and decide which religions fit us or not.

I personally kind of hate this because most of the people use pattern too obviously. But I can't even remotely deny, that there is great power in archetypes.

What power? I am not at all denying that archetypes exist or that they are present in many great stories. In fact, it's sort of their definition. My concern is that they are basically just patterns inferred in hindsight. Can you use archetypes to predict a plot of a movie? Could you use archetypes to accurately predict the plot of something not as trivial as Star Wars, say, Westworld or similar? Of course, you could've predicted the story will go according to some set of archetypes and then retrofit the specific archetypes and the specific ways in which they interact, but that wouldn't be a demostration of predictive power.

Or does this 'power' refer to the ability to produce great stories? Since archetypes are defined by observing them in wide variety of existing literature and art, ie. they are by definition elements of great stories, the notion that great stories require archetypes is basically equal to saying that great stories require elements of great stories. Seems rather tautological to me.

This is why it reminds me of horoscope - those are typically written such that they can mostly always fit one way or another. Are 'archetypes' any different? You said you find it difficult to write a story without any archetypes. This doesn't seem surprising to me at all, just like it's not surprising to me that it would be very hard for me to go about my day without fulfilling one horoscope or another.

[Bystroushaak]

I don't believe there's a clear line between the two. In fact, "responsibility" in this context probably encompases a whole philosophical system that pontentially overlaps with religion in general or other quasi-religious and non-religious philosophical systems.

Aside: For example notice that in christianity the responsibility towards one's family is a top value emphasized heavily in both testaments, although the implications of that are probably somewhat different that what you'd like and this isn't me promoting christianity, it's just an observation.

I think I can mostly agree with this.

Note that responsibility in and of itself really provides no guidance. You need a system of values to complement it in order to know what to be responsible about and to discern which calls for responsibility are just and which aren't. And in fact, a similar thing is true of religion, otherwise we wouldn't be able to compare/judge religions and decide which religions fit us or not.

I am not so sure. I don't want to go into this debate, because I didn't really thought about this much, but I think that responsibility may be used as an axiom, from which you can derive all kind of morality in quite straightforward way.

What power? I am not at all denying that archetypes exist or that they are present in many great stories. In fact, it's sort of their definition. My concern is that they are basically just patterns inferred in hindsight. Can you use archetypes to predict a plot of a movie? Could you use archetypes to accurately predict the plot of something not as trivial as Star Wars, say, Westworld or similar? Of course, you could've predicted the story will go according to some set of archetypes and then retrofit the specific archetypes and the specific ways in which they interact, but that wouldn't be a demostration of predictive power.

I think that Westworld was full of archetypes, but sometimes managed to introduce plot twist to break them.

Or does this 'power' refer to the ability to produce great stories? Since archetypes are defined by observing them in wide variety of existing literature and art, ie. they are by definition elements of great stories, the notion that great stories require archetypes is basically equal to saying that great stories require elements of great stories. Seems rather tautological to me.

I was originally indeed referring to the 'power' in the context of producing stories, as that is what interests me. For me it is mostly about thinking how can you make great story without (often used) archetypes.

This is why it reminds me of horoscope - those are typically written such that they can mostly always fit one way or another. Are 'archetypes' any different? You said you find it difficult to write a story without any archetypes. This doesn't seem surprising to me at all, just like it's not surprising to me that it would be very hard for me to go about my day without fulfilling one horoscope or another.

Archetypes are imho much more specific and not so vague. I am not sure about your approach toward this discussion. For me, archetypes are powerful story telling tool, that can be used to boost stories. For you, it seems to be about philosophical definition. For JBP, it is about religion and stability of societies. I am not sure that I am qualified for philosophical discussion.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

I am not so sure. I don't want to go into this debate, because I didn't really thought about this much, but I think that responsibility may be used as an axiom, from which you can derive all kind of morality in quite straightforward way.

As for responsibility, I'm not sure how that would work. For example, let's suppose I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that daily prayer to the FSM is required to appease it and ensure prosperity for humans. From that point of view, you are extremely irresponsible if you don't pray daily to the FSM

In any case, this is the kind of question one may be occupied with for years. Personally I have developed some "axioms" from which to derive moral values, but they're not real axioms (as in math) in that they still require intuition to apply sensibly in real life, and I suspect they never will be realy like the ones in math... I won't elaborate since you didn't want to go into debating it...

Archetypes are imho much more specific and not so vague. I am not sure about your approach toward this discussion. For me, archetypes are powerful story telling tool, that can be used to boost stories. For you, it seems to be about philosophical definition. For JBP, it is about religion and stability of societies. I am not sure that I am qualified for philosophical discussion.

Ok, I won't press the issue further apart from mentioning TVTropes (with the sheer number of tropes observed in media being a bit of a hint about the applicability of archetypes).

[JS1]

Peterson countered with argument that science doesn't give your life meaning.

I find this a strange thing to say. It seems to me that many intelligent people derive meaning from doing science. And if we are indeed free energy minimizers, that would be hardly surprising.

But I can't even remotely deny, that there is great power in archetypes. Lately, I have been thinking about how to write story without any archetypes and found it incredibly difficult.

I have similar issues with archetypes as Kralyk mentioned above. It's a very vague concept with dubious definition, and the fact that Jung related it to idea of synchronicity, which is even more vague and dubious, doesn't help either.

I feel that archetypes are pretty much colorful descriptions of various life strategies. And just like in say chess, strategies exist independently on any individual game, they are consequence of the rules. For example, take my favorite archetype of "the jester". It's basically a deal with powers at be, where the jester will explicitly eliminate himself from the competition for power, exchanging that for free access to information and ability to speak truth to power. I think you could do a similar analysis with any archetype.

[Bystroushaak]

I find this a strange thing to say. It seems to me that many intelligent people derive meaning from doing science. And if we are indeed free energy minimizers, that would be hardly surprising.

Yeah, but majority does not.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

It seems to me that many intelligent people derive meaning from doing science.

I didn't see how this would work in discussions with kyknos and I still don't see it. Science is a tool for discovering principles and also meaning, I suppose, in the long run. If that's the case then deriving meaning from 'doing science' would essential boil down to deriving meaning from looking for meaning. Seem overly recursive to me. Did I miss a thing?

[JS1]

I am not sure what the discussion with Kyknos was about; as far as I remember the debates always became so deep that they have fallen out off the right side of my window.

Anyway, personally I can derive meaning from doing science, in the broadest sense. I could be playing Minecraft all day and find it meaningful; it is a kind of science - you experiment, you get observations, make theory, maybe you invent something new.. The only thing that really prevents me to play right now is that there are other puzzles to play with, which are more meaningful to me (like P vs NP question).

Perhaps that's why I always found "the search for meaning" that some people have to be a bit ridiculous. It seems to me that I have always lived in the opposite situation - there was too many meaningful things to do. Perhaps it's something like happiness - while there are external factors that affect it (on which we can agree), it primarily comes (or doesn't) from within the individual.

[Bystroushaak]

I am not sure what the discussion with Kyknos was about; as far as I remember the debates always became so deep that they have fallen out off the right side of my window.

You can put this into your settings / CSS:

.ds_odsazeni {
  min-width: 35em;
  background-color: #fff;
}

It will make deeply nested discussions readable.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

Anyway, personally I can derive meaning from doing science, in the broadest sense.

(...)

It seems to me that I have always lived in the opposite situation - there was too many meaningful things to do.

Oh absolutely, I have it the same way. But that's sort of a 'personal' meaning, or perhaps it's more of a motivation.

However, the way I understand 'meaning' in terms of this thread, it's more towards meaning as in 42. And I'd agree with Peterson that science can't really provide that (not just yet, anyway), althouogh I'd disagree with him that religion can. I think it can't provide it either, since religion already is a result of inferring this 'meaning'.

[Bystroushaak]

And I'd agree with Peterson that science can't really provide that (not just yet, anyway), althouogh I'd disagree with him that religion can. I think it can't provide it either, since religion already is a result of inferring this 'meaning'.

It depends whether you look at things from the philosophical or practical point of view.

For example, (this is directed more towards JS1) how many people you know derive meaning of their life from science and scientific improvements? I consider myself a rational person, scientific progress is nice and I really believe that scientific method may be man's best invention, but do I derive meaning from all that? No fucking way.

I've had the sad and tragic "luck" to be around several people who lost their drive and were literally suicidal. It took me everything I've got to pour some life into them, to push tentacle made of words into their mind and give them purpose. Because people crave purpose like nothing else.

If you are nerd fascinated by something, you can derive meaning from science, but what about normal person? Your mom, your partner? What will you tell them when their world shatters, everyone they relied on dies, crisis come and every believe they once had turns false, everything that made their life purposeful disappears? Because I can guarantee you, that it won't be "focus on science, it's great". What will you tell yourself, when every day seems boring and empty and everything you eat taste like ash? Because this happens to almost everyone, sooner or later. And science fails spectacularly to cure it.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

For example, (this is directed more towards JS1) how many people you know derive meaning of their life from science and scientific improvements? I consider myself a rational person, scientific progress is nice and I really believe that scientific method may be man's best invention, but do I derive meaning from all that? No fucking way.

I don't believe it's even possible to actually derive meaning from it. I believe people who 'derive meaning from science' are kidding themselves the same way the people who 'derive meaning from religion' are - that is, they decided through some process that science (or religion) leads to some meaningful and good result. In case of science, this noble objective is discovery and gains of understanding of the universe, in case of religion, it's typically salvation, moral excellence, happiness and/or similar themes.

That is, I believe very often people perform the logical trick of putting meaning into science or religion and then using it as an amplifier to get their meaning back while pretending they hadn't put it in there in the first place and that it was science/religion that provided it.

And in fact, I believe similar thing is true of moral values. People often 'get' moral values from religion and other philosophies because they projected them into it in the first place.

This is why I dislike those "science vs religion" debates since very often both sides engage in the same fallacy.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

I don't think debating ‘the meaning of life’ is particularly meaningful.

Why? Because it constitutes very different questions&answers depending on ones worldview. That said, religion, philosophy, natural sciences etc. all form ones worldview.

The view of life itself will vary between, say, someone who understands the laws of thermodynamics, and an apocalypticist. Or, as another example, the understanding of emotions and motivation is different between Stoics or people informed about modern neuroscience, and, well, other traditions and historical views of psychology (including Jung, eh).

[Bystroushaak]

I agree with the most of your comment, except that debating meaning may be subjectively meaningful. For example, one of my friend tried Stoicicsm, we talked about it and it changed my point of view on stoicism, and thus my own life philosophy.

I mean, it is not meaningful just for the sake of debate, arguments and counter-arguments, but if it changes your world view, then it may be useful.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

‘The meaning of life’ is an umbrella term—like ‘free will’—that covers underlying processes. It's more useful to talk about those processes themselves.

For example, the aforementioned Stoicism aims to describe oneself and the world for the most part, just like most philosophical traditions (natural sciences included). It's actually quite accurate in some ways (human cognition) and completely off in some others (e.g., the classical elements); see? here I'm comparing different philosophies and judging them: e.g., I'm refusing to accept the theory of classical elements.

Anyway, what each person does is that they internalize certain processes based on what information is available to them. We may call the result ‘the meaning of life’ and other terms… it doesn't necessarily tells us how it was reached, though.

[JS1]

I guess science is just an example. My mother seems to be like me but not interested in science in particular.

Maybe what you call "search for meaning" is really a manifestation of various fears and worries (like fear of death, loneliness, not being accepted in society, not being able to feed yourself), and by "meaning" we mean something that appeases these worries. Religion can do that, I guess. In other words, this "meaning" is more emotional coping mechanism rather than a guide what you should actually do (I think most people have a good idea what they want to be doing, it's just those existential fears that are sometimes a problem).

[Bystroushaak]

Maybe what you call "search for meaning" is really a manifestation of various fears and worries (like fear of death, loneliness, not being accepted in society, not being able to feed yourself), and by "meaning" we mean something that appeases these worries.

I don't think that it is this simple. It is not just comping mechanism, but something that gives you purpose, that makes you feel like you know your place in the world.

Religion can do that, I guess. In other words, this "meaning" is more emotional coping mechanism rather than a guide what you should actually do (I think most people have a good idea what they want to be doing, it's just those existential fears that are sometimes a problem).

I think it can be both, and even more. For example, one great point Peterson makes is that western civilization is oriented towards happiness. It is almost our meaning of life - to live happy life. To be happy, to make people around you happy. This can be powerful drive, because our mammalian brain is (on small scale of family) optimized to want to make people around you happy. But this life-goal can't help you when you are not happy, or when people around you are not happy. He takes one of the points of the bible, that life is suffering. Everyone suffers, from illnesses, relationships, death.. There is so much suffering and happiness is only small part of our lives. This doesn't say, that you shouldn't still pursue happiness, but that if it is your only goal, then it can made you unhappy really quickly, because it doesn't give you coping mechanism with suffering.

In this sense, religion can give you stronger mechanism to cope with life when it doesn't follow your plans. It has also other features, like supporting fellow believers and so on.

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

"Meaning" is just an emotion that's encoded in our DNA and whose purpose is to make people do stuff that is useful. People sometimes feel bad when they don't have some high-level purpose or meaning, that's why they're trying to find meaning in what they're doing. Sometimes "meaning" is framed as a philosophy problem but it's really a psychology or neuroscience topic.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

"Meaning" is just an emotion that's encoded in our DNA and whose purpose is to make people do stuff that is useful.

Hey, kid… wanna get into a semantic argument?

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

I didn't get the point...

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

Please explain your point.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

As for archetypes, honestly, I regard the whole concept as a load of voodoo. From where I'm standing people debating archetypes might as well go ahead and debate horoscopes next...

The Jung's idea of archetypes was such that those were patterns shared by all humanity and demonstrated in the unconscious. Not a scientific theory that could be tested, and the field of psychology eventually moved to more practical approaches.

Now, one of the many problems with Jordan Peterson is that he takes Jung's archetypes (which is arguably iffy by itself), but

• creates a hierarchy in that he arbitrarily calls some archetypes ‘true’,
• essentially considers archetypes to be guidelines for the conscious, i.e., they're not only descriptive anymore.

[Bystroushaak]

BTW: He often mentions that he is using replicated studies from the field of evolutionary psychology to base his theories on. That said, I didn't read any of those studies.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

Yeah, evolutionary psychology: proceed with caution. Especially in case he's cherry-picking and misinterpreting sources like he did wrt lobsters (or basically anything else).

[Bystroushaak]

Especially in case he's cherry-picking and misinterpreting sources like he did wrt lobsters (or basically anything else).

Hah, this was actually one of the things that made me watch his videos again after our last discussion, where you pointed that out. I watched one of the videos, where Peterson clarified the lobsters and as I expected, it was mostly empty drama. I didn't read his book, but apparently, he doesn't use lobsters as much as memes and drama around it would suggest.

Here: https://youtu.be/6N0y7-1kHHM?t=178

[Bystroushaak]

Or more specifically also here: https://youtu.be/6N0y7-1kHHM?t=599

[Fluttershy, yay!]

The argument involving lobsters is irrelevant.

To understand the similarities between any two organisms, biologists look back through evolutionary time to their most recent common ancestor. (…) If the common ancestor of humans and lobsters lacked dominance hierarchies (which seems likely, based on what we know about living animals), then our two species’ social behavior evolved independently, and the one can’t inform us about the other.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

Also, Peterson has apparently claimed to be an evolutionary biologist…

[Bystroushaak]

Why did Jordan Peterson say he is an evolutionary biologist?

I mean, you can't just take something out of context and then wonder why it doesn't make any sense. I've seen the original interview and the context there was pretty clear.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

Why’d he say that? Because he’s a Very Serious Man delivering vague absolute bollocks that he actually believes. He’s defined ‘evolutionary biologist’ as his own particular ill-defined mix of psychology and a misunderstanding of biology.

[Bystroushaak]

I think you are biased in your opinion. He said it in context, where it is clear how he meant it and this is just another example how people try to blow everything he says and blow it into drama. Which I think is retarded and actually discredits his opponents, not him.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

Classic lobster tactic: if the lobster king is talking nonsense at the micro level, it's taken out of context, and if the lobster king is called out for speaking with implicit controversial subtext, deny saying any such thing explicitly in detail.

[Bystroushaak]

Okay. Sure.

[Bystroushaak]

I mean, I thought about it a little and I am just generally curious about what you are trying to achieve here.

There was a lot of criticism in this discussion, some of which even people like me, who watch Peterson from time to time, would agree and think about. Then there is this bullshit. He maybe lied to everyone, or just meant the other meaning of the sentence (which is at least in my mind much more probable), or he just said something completely random. You act like it discredits him somehow, yet I fail to see how. Then you call me lobster and try to push me into the group of his followers.

What do you hope to achieve? Even if he was caught lying, you can hardly change my opinion, because I don't really care about Peterson that much. If he died tomorrow, I wouldn't probably shed a tear, or write a necrology. You probably won't change opinion of other people, because most of them don't even know who he is. To me, it looks like you are trying to deny him mostly to yourself, and that you are trying to attack him as a person, instead of him as a set of ideas he have. Whats the point? Am I missing something?

[Fluttershy, yay!]

I'm just browsing the web and posting only some noteworthy stuff that pops up repeatedly and has some substance.

Is it useful? It depends… I'm not aware of any such way to convince a committed lobster (or in a broader sense, the groups there were left behind), because of the backfire effect among other things. There's still the (silent) majority, though. Then it becomes a question of taking public personas at face value, even in the light of #27.

[JS1]

The argument involving lobsters is irrelevant.

I didn't even get to the lobster part, and I might reconsider that JBP is actually delusional. This:

The only hierarchies that exist are hierarchies of competence, not power.

I wish I lived in the same universe as him (I guess university bubble counts as such, because universities are often quite free of power hierarchies). If anyone here knows a company that operates on that principle, I will be glad to send them my CV.

I do however agree that power hierarchies in humans are probably biological to some extent (regardless of the validity of the "lobster argument"). I would certainly wish democracy came more naturally to people than power hierarchies, but looks like it doesn't. (It's interesting by the way that some of the strongest opponents to hierarchical society established by state are so tolerant of hierarchies within private companies, like Peterson and many self-proclaimed anti-communists.)

I don't think we understand biological purpose of hierarchies, if any. I have few theories but neither is super convincing. One is that hierarchies are somehow natural solution to problem of social decision-making, a consequence of evolution and game theory. Another is that human males build hierarchies to impress females, kinda like male deers face it off with each other. Yet another theory is that there is some actual practical advantage of having a hierarchy, but I don't see it. Yet another theory is that it developed for survival of the group, and not individual, so trying to understand it from individualistic perspective is pointless.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

I do however agree that power hierarchies in humans are probably biological to some extent (regardless of the validity of the "lobster argument"). I would certainly wish democracy came more naturally to people than power hierarchies, but looks like it doesn't.

Consider what Weinstein said about evolution (and really, it should be common knowledge) in one of the linked interviews. Humans evolved in drastically different environments for the most part of their history; this includes living in small groups that were mostly egalitarian. Adaptation takes time…

[JS1]

Well, that's one possible theory.. I mention it under the video that to me it seems that the conservative morality (according to Haidt, grounded equally in five principles - no harm, fairness, community, authority, body purity) is our natural, biological one; and the liberal morality (which strongly prefers only first two principles and somewhat rejects the last two) is the cultural adaptation to large-scale human societies (that's why it's so popular in cities). Also, the first two principles are pretty easy to argue out rationally, however, the other three are much harder to defend through rational arguments.

But as you correctly point out elsewhere, one has to be careful with evolutionary explanations, as it is very easy to explain things in a wrong way. So I take this as one possible explanation out of several.

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

Yet another theory is that there is some actual practical advantage of having a hierarchy, but I don't see it.

Of course there is an advantage. I mean, social hierarchies are a very common pattern in nature for a reason. I don't see how organizations could effectively work without something at least resembling a hierarchy.

[JS1]

But what is that reason? I don't think there is good evidence for any of the possible reasons I can think of. And not every reason means that it is also advantageous.

It's true that some hierarchy is useful, but it is possible for societies, nations and companies to organize without having a hierarchy of power. Democratic systems are by definition rejecting hiearchy of power.

[Bystroushaak]

But what is that reason? I don't think there is good evidence for any of the possible reasons I can think of. And not every reason means that it is also advantageous.

Effectiveness of decision making? I mean, even things like central nervous system is hierarchical, and even completely decentralized things like internet tend to create centralized structures (DNS for example).

It's true that some hierarchy is useful, but it is possible for societies, nations and companies to organize without having a hierarchy of power. Democratic systems are by definition rejecting hiearchy of power.

That is possible only recently, with advent of computers and computer networks with projects like blockchain and Democracy 21. For example, even modern democracy tends to create hierarchies, it differs only in that it makes them just for specific amount of time and then reorganizes them by the will of the people. It is also notable, that hierarchy is not changed, only people who are physically representing it.

[JS1]

That doesn't explain power hierarchies, for several reasons. Nor does it explain why people wish for them to exist ("rule with an iron fist").

As an aside, I don't think CNS is hierarchical. There is specialization, but I don't think there is a place that has clearly more power in decision-making than other places. Unlike human hierarchies, where that does happen more frequently than we would perhaps want.

And definition of democracy is that everybody has equal access to public affairs (power), which is as non-hierarchical as it gets. Checks and balances and republican separation of powers is deliberately non-hierarchical arrangement (although it has its flaws).

[Bystroushaak]

And definition of democracy is that everybody has equal access to public affairs (power), which is as non-hierarchical as it gets. Checks and balances and republican separation of powers is deliberately non-hierarchical arrangement (although it has its flaws).

Access maybe (that depends and I would argue that for example, here in Czech republic, that access is not so great), but ability to actually change anything is strictly hierarchical.

As an aside, I don't think CNS is hierarchical. There is specialization, but I don't think there is a place that has clearly more power in decision-making than other places. Unlike human hierarchies, where that does happen more frequently than we would perhaps want.

I think that brain has more power?

[JS1]

but ability to actually change anything is strictly hierarchical

I don't think that's true. Maybe you should explain what kind of hierarchy you see here. But as far as I can tell, you can get elected to be a local representative, a member of parliament, or a president; and then you can do the changes pretty much independently, you don't have to ask for additional permission from anybody else (except other people elected on the same level).

I think that brain has more power?

No, it doesn't. Brain cannot decide to stop your heart, or it cannot decide that your immune system will work differently. It even cannot decide to stop your breathing, which is controlled by a part in it.

It would be useful if you actually had a model how power works. It's based on shared (dis)information. Brain cannot decide to threaten a small part of your body to do what it wants, like people in power hierarchies do.

[Bystroushaak]

.. as far as I can tell, you can get elected to be a local representative, a member of parliament, or a president; and then you can do the changes pretty much independently, you don't have to ask for additional permission from anybody else (except other people elected on the same level).

You just described strongly (actually in law) defined hierarchy.

No, it doesn't. Brain cannot decide to stop your heart, or it cannot decide that your immune system will work differently. It even cannot decide to stop your breathing, which is controlled by a part in it.

Well, that is debatable. For example depression and stress can have direct influence on your health. And every other thing it can do indirectly by simply putting you into situation where that happen.

Brain cannot decide to threaten a small part of your body to do what it wants, like people in power hierarchies do.

Did you ever heard about Somatoparaphrenia or Body integrity dysphoria?

[JS1]

OK, let's stop this idiocy. By power hierarchies I mean quite a specific phenomena among some agents that have free will. There are many other hierarchies in nature, however their existence doesn't in any way influence or justify existence of power hierarchies. Thinking like that is on the level of morphic resonance theories (although these are not that far from Jung either).

So brains and laws (and languages, and sciences, and distributed computer systems) having hierarchies has nothing to do with power hierarchies in humans. Let's take a practical example. If I go to Russia, and I protest against Putin on the Red Square, I will be put in prison. That alone proves an existence of power hierarchy - some humans that have the power to decide lives of other humans. This has nothing to do with whether Putin is a competent president, that's not why he would send me to prison.

It also has nothing to do with e.g. firemen having a leader, who makes mutual coordination easier. The firemen squad leaders' purpose is not to exert power over the lives of his comrades (at least in theory).

More realistic examples from the West, where these hierarchies are usually smaller and less influential. Google Dragonfly project I mentioned. How long do you think I would stay in my company if I sent a really critical email to the CEO, CCing everybody? We are taught from young age not to do these things (to disrespect authority), and for a reason - it is not very healthy. Also possesion of money forms a hierarchy which determines where to invest, and while this hierarchy is largely invisible, it is actually quite important. It might even be the cause that JBP getting funding or not and from whom (as Davkol mentioned here somewhere) is indeed a manifestation of a power hierarchy, which as he claims does not exist in the real world!

The reason why real-world power hierarchies do not like free spreading of information is because their existence is predicated on misinformation. Think about how power hierarchy forms (for example, how somebody becomes head of mafia). And that's why I am really skeptical of theories that there is a practical reason for their existence, and I suspect they are pretty much an unintended consequence of something (but I don't know what that is). Otherwise, keeping people lower in the hierarchy in the dark wouldn't be so crucial for power hierarchies to form and exist.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

It also has nothing to do with e.g. firemen having a leader, who makes mutual coordination easier. The firemen squad leaders' purpose is not to exert power over the lives of his comrades (at least in theory).

Yes, that's a different kind of hierarchy, I'd call it an ad-hoc hierarchy existing to accomplish a specific purpose.

And that's why I am really skeptical of theories that there is a practical reason for their existence, and I suspect they are pretty much an unintended consequence of something (but I don't know what that is).

I believe the practical reason for their existency is that they are a simple and crude solution to a problem. In any case, although they had been pre-existing before, the hierarchies mostly became a thing after the neolithic revolution, so whatever the reason, it probably lies somewhere in that area.

In point of fact, from looking into history it seems to me that the hierarchies are older than money- or debt-based economies (barring the primitive barter- or gift-based economies which had pre-existed for at least 100k years beforehand), ie. I don't believe the "money causes hierarchies" notion is true at all. If anything, it's probably the other way around. Perhaps you could even go as far as saying that agriculture causes both hierarchies and money.

[Bystroushaak]

In point of fact, from looking into history it seems to me that the hierarchies are older than money- or debt-based economies (barring the primitive barter- or gift-based economies which had pre-existed for at least 100k years beforehand), ie. I don't believe the "money causes hierarchies" notion is true at all. If anything, it's probably the other way around. Perhaps you could even go as far as saying that agriculture causes both hierarchies and money.

Oh, you evil lobster!

[JS1]

I was thinking about this overnight and now it seems to me that even taken at the face value, lobster analogy (or any animal kingdom analogy, like primate hierarchies) with human power hierarchies is flawed.

In human power hierarchies, the control over information is crucial. This allows people who are not the strongest physically, but rather very skilled psychological manipulators, to come out on top of the hierarchy. This is not the case in any other species (as far as we know, it's possible that social animals like elephants or dolphins or wolves actually manage something like that) - in other species, the hierarchies are structured based on some clear physical attribute, which is generally understood by everyone in the hierarchy. And the individuals at the top of hierarchy are also being permanently challenged based on that attribute.

I think you're correct that this type of power hierarchies became possible in neolithic period, after agriculture was invented, because it was required to scale up the human society into civilization (or at least emerged as a side effect of that scaling).

Still, it doesn't completely resolve all the problems. Why is it then that respect to authority (as a moral value) seems to have a biological origin? Is that something that was transferred from the original hierarchies that had the physical power as the attribute?

As a side note, I still have a problem with JBP implying that this physical attribute that ends up at the top of the hierarchy in the natural world is equal to competence. It's a kind of naturalistic fallacy. (And in many species, the relation of the attribute to the actual fitness is rather complicated. I like the view of evolution where there are actually two, quite independent, forces - natural selection and sexual selection.)

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

In human power hierarchies, the control over information is crucial. This allows people who are not the strongest physically, but rather very skilled psychological manipulators, to come out on top of the hierarchy. This is not the case in any other species (as far as we know, it's possible that social animals like elephants or dolphins or wolves actually manage something like that)

Well, Yudkowski reports in one chapters of HPMOR (which I recently finished reading) that this has been observed in apes and he further speculates that this in fact had been the driving force behind human intelligence.

To be honest, I am taking offence with that argument and to me it's one of the most serious instances of pseudoscience presented in the HPMOR book (although there are others as well). There are several problems with that argument, most important of which is that it doesn't seem to lead to evolutional selection of intelligence traits of the whole tribe/pack, rather, it only selects intelligence traits in a smaller set of 'elite' individuals. Another problem is that political scheming and shenanigans weaken the whole tribe and would therefore constitue an evolutionary disagvantage of the tribe/pack as a unit.

I think - and this is just my personal specualtion rather than science - that it had been the other way around, in that the affinity to egalitarianism had actually been the driving force behind human intelligence. The reason for this is, I belive, that egalitarian cooperation requires more complex mental processing compared to hierarchies, and, more importantly, egalitarian cooperation requires that the majority of participants are intelligent. This is a contrast to highly hierarchical societies like Chimpanzee, where only the elite needs to be strong/intelligent and the rest may as well stay dumb and simply follow orders. In fact, staying somewhat dumb might even be an advantage for a regular pack member in that scenario.

Notice that in this hypothesis (if I can call it that), unlike in Yudkowski's, there's a more or less even pressure on intelligence in the whole tribe and the increase of intelligence in its members actually increases the competitive advantage of the pack, rather than leading to its instability through more and more advanced scheming. In other words, egalitarian cooperation positively reinforces both individual intelligence as well as the proportion of intelligent members in the group, whereas highly competitive social hierarchy while promoting individual intelligence through competition requires that the proportion of intelligent members is low enough for the hierarchy to be preserved.

I think this effect can even be observed in technology as well - P2P / decentralized / federative / distributed technologies typically need to be much 'smarter' then their centralized counterparts in order to function and bring about their benefits. Bystroušák already mentioned blockchain, which is a 'smart' technology and it will probably need to become yet smarter in order to be more practical. Another example is DVCS - git is smarter and harder to learn compared to svn because of its decentralized nature.

Again, the previous 3 paragraphs are very much IMHO and my personal speculation. I'm not aware of it being actually corroborated by science (other than pre-agricultural humans being egalitarian) and it's probably an oversimplification. I'm mentioning it mostly to make a point against the purported evolutionary necessity of social hierarchies.

As a side note, I still have a problem with JBP implying that this physical attribute that ends up at the top of the hierarchy in the natural world is equal to competence. It's a kind of naturalistic fallacy.

Yes, and in fact biology even has a name for a trait which has been aggressively selected for sexually to the point where it becomes a practical disagvantage. I just can't remember the term for this right now.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

Just to clarify: I'm not taking offence with Yudkowski speculating or speculating in a certain direction in the book. As far as I'm concerned he's free to propose all sorts of hypotheses, by all means. I'm offended by the lack of clear distinction between peer-reviewed scientific results or historically verified accounts and his own interpretation / inference / speculation / hypotheses.

[Bystroushaak]

I woudln't really take anything written there seriously, it was a fantasy after all. I think that everything there is form of clickbait for his other book (Rationality: from AI to Zombies).

[JS1]

Since I don't know much about HP, I don't think I would enjoy HPMOR. And Yudkowski is kinda like Peterson - he was interesting to me for a while (both are very smart no doubt), but some of his opinions seem a bit crazy. (We discussed this already before in the neoliberalism discussion.)

[Bystroushaak]

I actually kind of agree about Yudkowsky, but still, HPMOR is really smart and funny and Rationality: From AI to Zombies is excellent book of all congnitive biases, if not anything else.

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

Same here... there's something about his way of thinking and writing that I vaguely dislike, but I can't pinpoint it. He's the kind of person who can write a 10 page essay about an idea that can be compressed into one paragraph without much (valuable) information loss. I never thought "wow, this is a good insight" or "this guy is really smart" when reading something from him.

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

You might enjoy the book Sapiens, unless you've already read it. It's very readable, interesting and thought-provoking although some of the ideas especially later in the book seemed too speculative.

[JS1]

I have it in my library, but sadly that's a very small guarantee that I will read it.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

Of course there is an advantage. I mean, social hierarchies are a very common pattern in nature for a reason. I don't see how organizations could effectively work without something at least resembling a hierarchy.

That's a very Peterson thing to say.

Social hierarchies are a common pattern, and yet humans evolved their and intelligence and other skills in, relative to nature's baseline, quite extreme egalitarianism. Sure, humans have since fallen back to hierarchies, but that's relatively recent from an evolutionary view and we've evolved language, intelligence and other skills that make us superior to other species before that while living in egalitarian societies.

If social hierarchies are so essential and effective, how could egalitarian humans have exterminated large amounts of other species (sadly, especially megafauna) and become dominant of pretty much all the other species?

I think the evolution of humans suggests social hierarchies are not in fact such a great thing.

Note that I'm strictly speaking of 'social hierarchies' not ad-hoc or 'technical' hierarchies mentioned by JS1 in the firemen example.

[JS1]

That's a very Peterson thing to say.

Yeah.

I think the evolution of humans suggests social hierarchies are not in fact such a great thing.

That's true. I am reminded of Robert Sapolsky's work - for example here or here.

This is also discussed in the book The Spirit Level, which argues that less economically equal societies have higher rate of social issues. Interestingly, the health problems caused by inequality actually negatively affects even the high ranking individuals.

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

I have a hard time believing that human societies used to be egalitarian (well, depends on what exactly would you consider as "egalitarian"), because some informal hierarchy often emerges in any human group. People vary in how dominant they are in a group setting. Who did make group decisions in those egalitarian societies, did they have direct democracy?

Also not sure about the social and technical hierarchies distinction. Is company a social or technical hierarchy? When I said that there is an advantage in a hierarchy, I was referring to companies for example.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

I have a hard time believing that human societies used to be egalitarian (well, depends on what exactly would you consider as "egalitarian")

A starting point.

because some informal hierarchy often emerges in any human group. People vary in how dominant they are in a group setting. Who did make group decisions in those egalitarian societies, did they have direct democracy?

Yes, but people are very flexible about this. I have seen many cases where the same person was dominant in one setting/group/aspect and submissive in another.

I think Western culture/media are giving people false intuitions about dominance/submission in human social structures. For example consider 17th century pirates. From popular culture it's easy to come to think that a pirate ship captain ruled his ship with an iron fist and there was a strict chain-of-command-like structure, but this is in fact not the case as pirate ships were democracies and many decisions (such were a ship would be headed) were often made by the entire crew in a fairly democratic manner (such as by voting etc.).

And in fact, this is consistent with nomadic hunter-gatherer societies, since pirates were living a pretty nomadic lifestyle...

[JS1]

Most companies are still pretty much social hierarchies. You can see that if you answer the question I posed above: Imagine sending email strongly criticizing CEO (or company owner), about something that is public knowledge (for example a big failed project), to everybody in the company. How long would you last?

Worker cooperatives like Mondragon are an exception - there firing and hiring is done with the (at least implicit) agreement of everybody. So as long as your boss has the discretion to fire you or modify your salary (or otherwise punish you), you are dealing with a social hierarchy and not technical.

[Bystroushaak]

I wish I lived in the same universe as him (I guess university bubble counts as such, because universities are often quite free of power hierarchies). If anyone here knows a company that operates on that principle, I will be glad to send them my CV.

He mentioned several times, that universities are absolutely vicious when it comes to power.

I didn't even get to the lobster part, and I might reconsider that JBP is actually delusional. This:

The only hierarchies that exist are hierarchies of competence, not power.

Here is what I would suggest: Yeach and every time you feel like you can't believe to some stupidity from Peterson, just type it into google / youtube and go for the primary source. For eaxmple: Jordan Peterson - Competence, not power (7 minutes). It usually isn't stupid, just taken out of context.

[JS1]

I am not convinced that unis are more vicious (about power) than corporations. In any case, they still are more democratic and it might seem that way. (Arguably, neoliberalism made it worse, by reducing academic freedoms and tenure.)

Regarding Peterson, believe it or not it's not the first time I hear that argument from him (that hierarchies are of competence not power). And yes, I find it naive. The West is being significantly better than the rest of the world because instead of having only one (or couple) power hierarchies that pervade the whole society, as was usual in feudalism or under mafia, we have many relatively smaller hierarchies which have limited power. But each of them is still primarily hierarchy of power.

It will be interesting to see how this dynamic will play out for example at Google (and other large tech companies), where the employees are generally disapproving the hierarchy of power (as evidenced in the Dragonfly project). But there is no doubt it is still omnipresent.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

I am not sure Jungian view can be considered to be a scientific theory

It can't and even worse, JP is misinterpreting Jung.

[Odin]

Says somebody with a pedohorse avatar.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

That's argumentum ad caballum.

[Odin]

yes, there is nothing wrong about that (since the times of Caligula)

[Jacob]

Do you think that it's even possible for multiple people to agree on what's moral?

[Bystroushaak]

Yeah, it is surprising that in age of smartphones people can sit through a 4-hour debate.

Not just sit, but actually enjoy.

I didn't see the debate, but I read and liked the 2nd link.

I find the topic a bit boring, I am not sure Jungian view can be considered to be a scientific theory. And frankly, the biggest issues in ethics always involve more than one person, so if the debate focused on how one person makes their moral decisions rather than on how multiple people can agree on what is moral, then it will never be very interesting.

I can only suggest to watch the followups. I didn't seen them myself yet, but I believe that they are touching points you made.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

I've never before heard about Harris

One of the Four Horsemen of Atheism, and a neocon.

At least he makes sense most of the time, unlike the lobster cult leader, who has also ventured into this shit with “Dr.” Oz recently, besides the infamous Cider of Doom debacle.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

Just to give it a more positive spin, though, dismantling the errors provides a quite approachable platform for learning about actual philosophy, history and what not.

For instance, Jordan Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism.

[JS1]

Man, 60% of what you write I almost completely agree with but the other 40% is crap..

I think you should give JBP a break. I agree he misunderstands many things (like many things on the left), and he is crazy about other things, but most if not all people are like that. I think in this age of social media we should be more tolerant to people making fool of themselves, not require everybody to be complete expert in everything, otherwise it will only lead to further divides.

That being said, I think it is unfortunate that he doesn't want to engage any serious leftists (e.g. marxists) in the debate. Whether it is a (rightful) fear that he would get "educated", or intentional dishonesty.. I will give him a benefit of the doubt. But he should engage more competent and diverse opponents.

And you, I wish you recommend something better for Bystroushaak to read and listen to than (at best) 2nd rate philosophers. Like in the last discussion, where I tried to get him to read something better than DFens to get economic education. (And I know I simplify, but Bystroushaak really - these are not the giants you're looking for.)

[Fluttershy, yay!]

Well, the recommendation is straightforward: go read some Jung, Foucault or at least the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. That's the point of channels like CGP Grey's or—as cringeworthy as it may sound—even Cuck Philosophy.

I already cited Bratton's talk about TED years ago, mostly because it points out systemic problems summed in the phrase that we need “more Copernicus, less Tony Robbins.”

That's one part of the issue with pop self-help and pseudo-intellectual content; the other one involves conflicts of interests. You see folks from Alex Jones to Joe Rogan advertise and sell supplements, shows and even book authors get funded by major industries… and then there are simply fraudsters (such as Jonah Lehrer, even though his early books appeared quite good actually).

[JS1]

OK, that's fair.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

Well, the recommendation is straightforward: go read some Jung, Foucault or at least the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. That's the point of channels like CGP Grey's or—as cringeworthy as it may sound—even Cuck Philosophy.

My problem with this is that a good part of the standard philosophy literature feels to me like a pile of rubish and I just can't get myself to read it. Like Jung or Marx. Maybe I'm too condescending and/or not open to ideas, but reading a book where a dumb idea is elaborated eloquently over dozens of pages is just too irritating for me to finish the book. I know there might be other potentially worthwhile ideas in there but the haystack-searching is off-putting...

I have Spinoza on my to-read list and I've got fingers crossed that one could be actually worth reading.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

That's why resources like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (or even Wikipedia) exist, if you don't care about engaging the source material directly, and there's also a point to different translations of classic works, as it may alter semantics as well (especially important when translating from Ancient/Koine Greek—or German).

[Fluttershy, yay!]

That's one part of the issue with pop self-help and pseudo-intellectual content; the other one involves conflicts of interests. You see folks from Alex Jones to Joe Rogan advertise and sell supplements, shows and even book authors get funded by major industries… and then there are simply fraudsters (such as Jonah Lehrer, even though his early books appeared quite good actually).

About that and Jordan Peterson…

Jordan Peterson’s federal funding denied, Rebel Media picks up the tab. (more about The Rebel Media)

Jordan Peterson now shilling for Jeff Sandefer.

[Bystroushaak]

I agree he misunderstands many things (like many things on the left), and he is crazy about other things, but most if not all people are like that.

I am not so sure about him misunderstanding things. He is not easy to categorize, he creates his own category of often seemingly contradictory views. I find it quite amusing how people often come to him and expect him to fall into some category, like "right wing" and he then completely shatters their expectations. For example, he often talks about how he started as a socialist and how he tries to find balance between socialism and conservatism, which he believes lays in never ending conversation between both parties.

He is also extremely smart guy who spent his entire life by trying to understand this stuff. You can really see what I mean in Jordan Peterson | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union

I think in this age of social media we should be more tolerant to people making fool of themselves, not require everybody to be complete expert in everything, otherwise it will only lead to further divides.

This is actually one more thing that really astounds me about JBP; he uploaded hundreds of hours on the youtube (two years back, he stated that he uploaded something around 500 hours of his talks) and had at least dozens of hours of debates and this is all the controversy there is. I mean, this isn't fail, on the contrary, it is incredible accomplishment that there is so little controversy.

BTW: I was deeply impressed by this part about minimal necessary force in discussion was really inspirational: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObdpkUkQyDQ&t=2558. I think that this is also something directly applicable here in our discussions.

That being said, I think it is unfortunate that he doesn't want to engage any serious leftists (e.g. marxists) in the debate.

He did had some debates with quite serious leftists, but afaik not 1:1. I would be also interested to see such debate.

And I know I simplify, but Bystroushaak really - these are not the giants you're looking for.

I know, but still, they can make solid arguments in sophisticated manner and that is quite useful by itself.

As I mentioned before, right now, I am going over all Alan Kay videos and try to get key points from each of them. In the meantime, I am still reading Yudkowsky's book on Rationality.

[JS1]

I think he misunderstands many leftist positions and I am not alone. Maybe you can take our word for it?

There are plenty of smart people who spent life understanding things. It's not that exceptional.

I have seen his Cambridge address and I wasn't impressed. I even commented on his position on AGW (which makes me sad) thereof. (I mean, these days we have a 15-year old girl refusing to go to school, because what is the point?)

Maybe somebody already posted this and this here, I am not sure. I agree that Peterson seems just too angry about something.

[Bystroushaak]

I think he misunderstands many leftist positions and I am not alone. Maybe you can take our word for it?

Oh, I'll definitely keep in mind the possibility. I try to not to keep binary opinions but give information probability and sometimes to think about it in kind of quantum superposition, where I keep in mind both possibilities. Your arguments were not ignored :)

I may seem as kind of fanboy, but I don't really watch that much Peterson, I actually went to youtube because of our last discussion about him in the other thread here few weeks ago.

There are plenty of smart people who spent life understanding things. It's not that exceptional.

It kind of is. Most of the people he debated till today were kind of intellectuals like me, who just read something or talk about something and don't really have deeper knowledge. This was one of the reasons I really liked this debate, because Harris is not one of such intellectuals and it was really interesting to see two people who disagree really try to understand and correct points of view of each other. It may be a bit sad, but for me this was really interesting simply because I don't see that so much and I would like to be able to do that for example in personal relationship.

Maybe somebody already posted this and this here, I am not sure. I agree that Peterson seems just too angry about something.

Yeah, that is one of his darksides. He really likes to rant sometimes too much angrily.

Also that Maté guy seems really interesting, it would be great to see debate between him and Peterson.

[JS1]

By the way, I also enjoyed Brett Weinstein's point of view. He says many things that I pretty much came to independently, for example that the discourse is too binary (both sides of the feminism and anti-feminism debate should explore options that are different than our respective biological programs), and that the is-ought problem should be always dealt with before any discussion.

[JS1]

There is a new video with Weinstein that actually summarizes his view about the debate(s).

[Bystroushaak]

besides the infamous Cider of Doom debacle

I find the drama around that taken out of proportions. I haven't slept for days several times in my life, mostly when I was sick and had fevers. That doesn't mean that I didn't slept at all, but that I had so little and so fragmented sleep, that it felt like I had none at all.

Last such thing happened to me at sunday, when I tried dynamine (methylliberine) sample with some guarana and regular caffeine and later went to sleep, but had no dreams and thought clearly about stuff all the time while I was sleeping.

I have seen him talk about food allergies he have in the family. He talked about his meat-only diet and how he hates it, but it is only thing that worked. Personally, I don't know what to think about the meat diet, but I find entirely plausible that someone has strong allergic reaction and can't sleep.

who has also ventured into this shit with “Dr.” Oz recently

I hope I will find some time to watch this, I am really curious what can be so shitty about it.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

I haven't slept for days several times in my life, mostly when I was sick and had fevers.

…for 25 days, right? without severe cognitive impairment? (okay, that would actually explain a lot _/s) from apple cider?

This is one of the rare moments when Joe Rogan pushed back at least a little bit against that sort of nonsense.

this shit with “Dr.” Oz

I am really curious what can be so shitty about it

Oh, I see you're not familiar with the other quack.

There's an interesting pattern in what platforms JP picks—or avoids, which was particularly obvious wrt the University of Amsterdam talk.

[Bystroushaak]

…for 25 days, right? without severe cognitive impairment? (okay, that would actually explain a lot /s) from apple cider?

Idk. I have people in my family, who claim that wifi signal makes them hurt. They really feel the pain, but it is all in their brain (they didn't passed the blind test). I wouldn't underestimate power of auto-suggestion and placebo.

Oh, I see you're not familiar with the other quack.

I am trying to ignore most of the drama there is.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

If your point is that JP is delusional, yeah, that sounds about right.

[Bystroushaak]

Oh, I see you're not familiar with the other quack.

I watched first hour of the interview and didn't find out anything wrong with that. What made you describe it as "shit"?

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

I find the drama around that taken out of proportions.

I don't like JP but I agree with this. Everyone has their quirks. I don't think the 'Cider interview' is significant...

[Fluttershy, yay!]

I've never before heard about Harris

One of the Four Horsemen of Atheism, and a neocon.

It turns out that Harris' background is… interesting too.

[naše]

Asi něco jako Peterson u nás je Pjér la Šé'z.

[Agent]

To snad ne...

[Ondrej]

Thanks for the links. I've never listened to Peterson but Harris has some good presentations on youtube (and shortened motivational speech - It is always now.) Also his book Free Will has some interesting arguments as well.

[Agent]

Dobrá debata o Petersonovi - Maroš Baly - Diskusia o Jordanovi B. Petersonovi s Anekronom a Lukášom Balabánom

[Bystroushaak]

No, nevím. Třeba už hned ten první bod; Peterson narovinu několikrát řekl, že v boha nevěří, ale chová se tak, jako by věřil, protože věří v užitečnost náboženství. Naposledy například rovnou v těch videích, co jsem odkazoval.

[JS1]

Dan Dennett said something similar, that there is a hypothesis that most religious people actually do not believe in God per se, but rather believe that belief in God is positive for society (i.e. it's good that other people believe).

I personally think such nonsense beliefs should have no place in open humanistic society. People should be allowed to express their beliefs freely and they shouldn't, even collectively or implicitly, engage in misleading others regarding their own beliefs.

Dan Dennett also admits that there are possible social benefits of religion, but these are really orthogonal to the belief about deity.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

Třeba už hned ten první bod; Peterson narovinu několikrát řekl, že v boha nevěří, ale chová se tak, jako by věřil, protože věří v užitečnost náboženství.

Problém s těmihle diskusemi o etice z pozice vědy a náboženství je ten, že obě konvergují k filosofii. Ie. jde o debatu o různých filosofiích a různých filosofických aspektech mnohem víc než o náboženství nebo vědu. Pokud někdo řekne, že "v boha nevěří", ale "chová se tak, jako by věřil", tak to je z mého pohledu výrok s nedefinovaným významem, protože pokud nevim, v "jakého boha (předstírá že) věří", což ve skutečnosti znamená jakou se řídí filosofií, pak nemůžu z toho výroku nic moc usuzovat. Můžu něco předpokládat na základě své znalosti a zkušenosti s náboženstvím a mého odhadu, co má ten člověk na mysli a z jakého je náboženského prostředí, což může odpovídat, ale taky to může být totálně zavádějící.

Z toho důvodu třeba osobně nejsem moc ochoten odpovídat na otázky typu "jsi věřící" nebo "věříš v boha" nebo podobně, protože bez konkretizace a vymezení pojmů způsobí odpověď na 95% zavádějící efekt (což jsem zjistil v diskusích např. tady s kyknosem, ale i s lidmi AFK atd.).

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

I know nothing about Peterson, but whenever I see him mentioned on reddit, it's always in a negative connotation. Just searched "jordan peterson" on reddit and yep, reddit hates him.

[Bystroushaak]

He is definitely target of some hate.

One thing that I find interesting is that he really is kind of a fractal. You can look at him and see some branches, and Davkol can look at him and see completely different part of the fractal and JS1 looks at him and sees some other kind of fractal branches, and for all of you, he will seem like different guy. I have seen something between 20 to 50 hours of his videos and I still can't say much about him. I see lot of his points, a lot of back-references to his high-school talks he makes that other people miss, but I still don't see full pattern of the fractal, just the general shape of it.

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

I've just seen him for the first time on Bill Maher's show and... he's just ok, an above average guest but other than that, I don't find him particularly interesting or impressive in any way, I don't feel the urge to watch more of him.

By the way, one guy who I've recently seen on Bill Maher and really liked is Malcolm Nancy, he's an ex-intelligence guy, here's an interview with him: Malcolm Nance: How Russia Is Destroying Democracy. Mildy pro-Russian people such as JS1: watch it.

[JS1]

Mildy pro-Russian people such as JS1

Not sure how you arrived to that conclusion. I am pro-European, that's for sure (I live in Europe), and I am probably more pro-American than pro-Russian (since my livelihood depends on the former).

Anyway, I watched it.. I don't doubt that Russia sponsors some right-wing extremism in Europe and abroad. But I find the idea that it somehow threatens democracy preposterous. In fact, the Russian government probably hurts Russia in doing so, because money so spent (or money spent on the military) would be much better spent on making Russia a better country in the first place.

I don't think Putin really caused Americans to vote for Trump, it is just a convenient excuse of certain people in both parties. And I don't think he really cares that much, I think from international relations POV it makes little difference.

I also think American democracy is threatened a lot more by having 2-party system and too much money in politics. In fact, you could make the case that American democracy is actually stronger after the recent congress elections than it has been in decades.

And in general, I think the most effective cultural influence on other countries comes from immigration. The influence goes both ways - immigrants from country B to country A make the country A more culturally popular in country B, and to a lesser extent, they make country A more friendly towards country B. And I think the recent increase in people being pro-Russian here in Czechia can be attributed to the fact that we have lot of Ukrainian and Russian immigrants, while our own emigration to U.S. has comparatively decreased (since compared to U.S., EU is in many ways more progressive).

[Fluttershy, yay!]

I highly recommend reading some Alexander Dugin, one of the most influential modern Russian thinkers focused on but not limited to geopolitics.

[JS1]

Thanks, but I don't want to listen to another ultraconservative idiot. One was more than enough for this week, anyway.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

Apparently, there's a new book coming out that compares Dugin and Bey, and from what I've heard it should be interesting: Proroci postutopického radikalismu

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

Interesting, I remember that Malcolm Nance talked about him in one of his talks. Checked out the wiki, first sentence:

Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin is a Russian philosopher, political analyst, and strategist known for his fascist views.

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

I am pro-European, that's for sure (I live in Europe), and I am probably more pro-American than pro-Russian

Thank god, I have to apologise in that case :D

I am pro-European, that's for sure (I live in Europe), and I am probably more pro-American than pro-Russian

I don't have any strong opinions on the extent to which Russia is or will be successful in their efforts but I think it's a genuine and serious threat.

In fact, the Russian government probably hurts Russia in doing so, because money so spent (or money spent on the military) would be much better spent on making Russia a better country in the first place.

Of course, Russia isn't primarily optimizing for well-being of their population but for geopolitical power. I think that the danger of Russia is that (1) they're focused on weakening NATO-allied democracies and (2) it's an authoritarian state, so they can be quite efficient about it, they don't have to worry too much about the media and public opinion. They're not bound by moral principles.

I don't think Putin really caused Americans to vote for Trump

For sure, nobody thinks that Russia had a huge impact on American elections, but elections are often very close, so it's not unthinkable that "foreign meddling" may sometimes change the result.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

I don't think Putin really caused Americans to vote for Trump

For sure, nobody thinks that Russia had a huge impact on American elections, but elections are often very close, so it's not unthinkable that "foreign meddling" may sometimes change the result.

I do.

It appears that ‘Russia’ made Trump: he was dealing with Russian oligarchs for decades and it's very likely that there was money laundering involved to a significant extent. It could be crucial for the survival of Trump's businesses.

Entities with ties to the Russian government have long been involved in (a) funding specific activist groups (ranging from BLM to NRA), and (b) amplification of certain media stories, which arguably made Clinton lose.

[JS1]

Yes, maybe Russian oligarchs made or saved Trump, I don't deny that. However, Trump being elected president is solely a responsibility of the people voting for him (or non-voters not voting against him). Although the electoral system is partly to blame (mostly practical impossibility of third party candidate to win).

[Fluttershy, yay!]

However, Trump being elected president is solely a responsibility of the people voting for him (or non-voters not voting against him).

Just because you're correct doesn't mean you're right.

Seriously though, that claim is self-evident in the relevant legal framework. In practice, however, the trend goes from programming computers to programming people.

In other words, people base their decisions on whatever information they have available and internalized. If the Russian goal is to undermine trust in institutions, they need not interfere in elections directly, when the obvious option is to support fringe groups, target certain media stories at specific demographics, and engage troll armies.

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

Yep, exactly... one of Russia's tactics is supporting fringe groups on *both* sides, i.e. including radical anti-Trump protesters, presumably with the goal of maximizing polarization, infighting and us-vs-them thinking in the society.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

For the record, don't confuse ‘radical’ with ‘extremist’.

[JS1]

There is evidence that if Sanders went against Trump, he would win.

I think the explanation is much simpler - representative democracy is a flawed system. You're voting for a package of things (and you're not even sure they will happen, that's another problem). If you do a proper mathematical analysis then you can actually show, because of that, it's more likely for a fringe proposal (or candidate) to be implemented in representative democracy than in direct democracy. In other words, the common claim about "representative democracy being able to better defend right of minorities" is a nonsense that doesn't survive scrutiny.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

So, what about brexit?

[JS1]

I think it's a similar false dichotomy - people thinking they have choice between neoliberal EU and protectionist UK only. We cannot easily discount the possibility that it si a protest vote.

It is true that there was a huge campaign for Brexit. It consisted of many right-wing (traditional!) media and politicians hungry for power (like Klaus and Meciar when they split Czechoslovakia, it was a power grab) misleading people. There might have been a contribution by Russia and Facebook, but I am pretty skeptical that it was decisive for the result.

And I think there should be a 2nd referendum, after the deal with EU has been negotiated. Then things are much more clearer and people can make much more informed decision.

[Bystroushaak]

I think that it is actually even more simple and older story;

People are pissed and afraid and government didn't address their fears in any meaningful way. So they turned to whoever promised to actually change anything.

[JS1]

That's what I mean by protest vote. Let's try the other guy is the rationale behind it.

[_]

There is no brexit.

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

Although the electoral system is partly to blame

Maybe but there's also the counterexample of the UK and Australia.

[JS1]

I don't have any strong opinions on the extent to which Russia is or will be successful in their efforts but I think it's a genuine and serious threat. Of course, Russia isn't primarily optimizing for well-being of their population but for geopolitical power.

I think normal people shouldn't worry about geopolitical power. That's for arms dealers and drug traffickers and failed-to-be kings etc. This should be understood - what Russia (Russian government, really) is doing is unfortunate and short-sighted. It's best countered by making your own country so much better that Russians will love to immigrate in it. Then nobody will take Russian government seriously.

It was the strategy that worked during the Cold War (especially immediately after the war). Despite U.S.A. being an international bully, it was immensely popular in Czechoslovakia. That doesn't mean to forego any defense, but you don't need a huge budget to have an effective military (and counterintelligence) deterrent.

So, really, I wish people didn't let themselves to be pulled into geopolitical games. It's not healthy. I think this video should be shown as a New Year's message (perhaps dubbed for those hapless Czechs who don't know English yet).

Regarding the other question:

This is something I've been trying to understand for some time, is there some small set of primary factors that might explain the differences in demographics and perhaps the high level of polarization?

There is a great book on authoritarian thinking that tries to explain this (a bit). However, I think it is still a mystery why people like hierarchies of authority so much (especially those people who can expect to end up at the bottom).

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

I also think American democracy is threatened a lot more by having 2-party system and too much money in politics.

I've been following American politics lately and I have to agree, it's messed up in many ways. Some things Republicans do make my blood boil and I'm not even from America, lol (gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, recently power grab in Wisconsin - search "wisconsin" on r/politics). Most Americans support Democrats but most of the power is held by Republicans, especially on the state level.

By the way, it's interesting that the demographics of the Republican-Trump/Democrat divide in the American society is somewhat similar to the ANO-SPD-KSCM-Zeman/others divide here and perhaps in Britain: college/no college, urban/rural, younger/older, pro-EU/against-EU. This is something I've been trying to understand for some time, is there some small set of primary factors that might explain the differences in demographics and perhaps the high level of polarization?

And I don't really understand the "other camp" too, my parents support Zeman, SPD (and Babis to some extent) and I just don't get it. Some theories:

1. Older people were adults through the full ~30 years of post-communism. I only started caring about politics after 2000.

2. Political preferences are formed in youth, mostly before 30 or 40 years of age, and then stay stable, at least in the US according to this visualisation. So maybe people who grew up during communism see things differently?

[N/A]

"reddit hates him" seems like a compliment

reddit is full of shit and half brained pseudointelectuals

[Fluttershy, yay!]

See, I don't think that "reddit hates him". There are many subs that love JP and it's not even limited to /r/JordanPeterson (although it's often indistinguishable from MTGOW/TRP/…).

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

reddit is full of shit and half brained pseudointelectuals

True, but it's significantly less full of shit than the general population.

[N/A]

I beg to disagree.

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

I'd guess that you're one of those conservative/redpill/mra guys who have a problem with reddit's liberal views (liberal relative to them and to the general population).

[N/A]

I am not conservative at all. I am very liberal. But I am not a fan of stupidity, regardless of political views. And stupid people (again, by stupid I mean low IQ / low education kind of stupid, not people of some specific views or opinions) just tend to gather around reddit.

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

I guess it really depends on which subreddits you're subscribed to. It's true that the larger default subreddits (such as r/futurology) are often immensely stupid, unlike, say, r/machinelearning. But overall, I'm quite confident that the average redditor is smarter than the average human.

[N/A]

If you count uneducated hordes of Africa and Asia into your averages, then may be. But if we count only people with access to first world education and internet, then no way.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure,it's not your fault

The Donald

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

Lol. Do you think r/the_donald is above or below reddit's average in terms of intelligence?

[N/A]

Just about average.

[M.train]

Moc jsem se pobavil, díky.

Číst českou angličtinu sice není stejná bomba, jako jí přímo poslouchat třeba od našich politiků, ale furt je to příjemné zpestření na závěr dne

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

Zajímavý je, že češtinu tady przní každej druhej a nikdo se nad tím nepozastavuje. Například ty máš v tom komentáři IMHO čárku navíc. A mně se to taky stává často, neříkám, že ne. Jakmile ale někdo projeví znalost angličtiny horší než dokonalou (a je zřejmě jedno jak moc horší), hned se najde rozumbrada, který musí nutně dát tomu člověku najevo, jakej je trotl. Nejlépe česky. V tomto případě i přes to, že deklaroval záměr angličtinu procvičovat.

[M.train]

Já to píšu na anglické klávesnici, která mi automaticky často vkládá slova, která byla použita už předtím. Já ostatně autorovi nevyčítám snahu angličtinu procvičovat, chápu, že kdo nechodil od malička do anglických škol, tak bude asi celý život místo angličtiny používat překlady z češtiny. V opačném úhlu pak třeba můj syn napíše česká slova foneticky, jak je slyší.

[Blaazen]

Tak tady máš překlad do skutečný angličtiny:

UNCLE FRED SAYS ...

Blimey! So I 'ave watched all faaahr 'aaahrs ov debate between Sam Harris an' Jordan Peterson in Vancouver, an' I don't understand what da 'ell did I just witnessed.

I mean, I kind ov like Peterson, an' I've never befawer 'eard abaaaht Harris, but I liked 'is argumun's. But that's not what I don't understand. I can't get me mind around what was what that I 'ave been watching.

I've seen a lot ov Peterson's talks befawer, an' some ov 'em was brilliant, some ov 'em genuinely in'eresting. I've seen 'im debate an' engage in deep psychological flame war ov 'ighest discussion caliber wiv moderators an' uvver speakers. It was en'ertainin' an' all, but dis was somethin' completely different.

For faaahr 'aaahrs, Peterson an' Harris discussed their various world views an' psychology in cultivated an' well mean' manner. Whole even' was set up in potentially flame-inducin' way, there was moderator an' i' was expected ter be duel. But da opposite 'appened;

Two 'ighly in'elligen' individuals laid befawer each uvver their mun'al models an' 'elped 'emselves ter understand each uvver. And da crowd ov free thousand people cheered an' sacrificed their own time fer quesshuns an' answers just ter be able ter listen a little bi' longer.

It was like watchin' some spawt match, but wivaaaht da drama. People cheered an' applauded an' kept focus fer 'aaahrs, an' in da end, nobody won.

By all expectashuns, dis shouldn't been so in'eresting. It should be almost borin' debate ov two in'ellectuals an' yet I wen' two times an' all late ter sleep just because I couldn't stop listening.

Imagine somebody would tell yew abaaaht dis ten years befawer; oh, i' was a faaahr 'aaahrs long discussion between two in'ellectuals abaaaht psychology an' people actually paid money an' cheered an' loved every minute ov it.

Would yew believe what dis is possible? I wouldn't. But now I wan' mawer. Nuff said, yeah?

[Vulpes]

pure bullshit

worse than brexit

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

lol!

[Freshmouse]

Ti pánové žvaní o hovně. Jejich diskuse nevede k řešení žádného problému, k pochopení čehokoliv zajímavého či lidstvu prospěšného. Učebnicový příklad pseudointelektualismu. Jsou vlastně ekvivalentem Paris Hilton a podobných pseudocoel řiť (<- automatická oprava z "pseudocelebrit"), jen jsou marketingově zacíleni na trochu (opravdu jen trochu) jinou skupinu zákazníků.

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

I agree, you is right.

[Agent]

Každý má právo žvanit si o čemkoliv, třebas o hovně.

Kdo a na základě čeho určuje, co je lidstvu prospěšné? Pokud to těm žvanilům dělá dobře (je jim to prospěšné, jinak by nežvanili), tak ať si žvaní o čem chtějí.

[Bystroushaak]

Jen poznamenám, že to video má přes milion shlédnutí a tisíce lidí zaplatili aby tam mohli přijít naživo. Spekulace o tom jestli je to „žvanění“ lidstvu zajímavé jsou úplně mimo, protože přes milion lidí svým aktem ukázalo, že ano.

[Blaazen]

Agent neříkal "zajímavé", ale "prospěšné". Gangnam Style má tři a čtvrt miliardy.

[Blaazen]

"Zajímavé" použil Freshmouse výše, tak to se omlouvám. Nicméně počet kliků opravdu vypovídá spíš o zajímavosti, než o prospěšnosti.

[Bystroushaak]

No, tak samozřejmě. Prospěšnost lze jen těžko měřit dřív jak tak za 20 let, kdy třeba uvidíš, že si z toho lidi něco vzali (a nebo ne).

[deda.jabko]

Jen poznamenám, že to video má přes milion shlédnutí a tisíce lidí zaplatili aby tam mohli přijít naživo.

To by se dalo rict i o nejednom televangelistovi.

[Bystroushaak]

Ano, i nejednoho tele-evangelistu považují lidé za zajímavého. Tady by asi bylo prozíravější se podívat na rozložení publika, ale whatever, šlo mi o kontradikci původního tvrzení, že „Jejich diskuse nevede k řešení žádného problému, k pochopení čehokoliv zajímavého“ poukázáním na to že milion lidí (včetně mě) to zajímavým shledalo.

Asi bych mohl vjet i do zbytku tvrzení, například poukázáním na to, že se tam řešila otázka náboženství a filosofického sebeurčení v moderní době a že to ovlivňuje životy velké spousty lidí, jmenovitě například Peterson má doslova stoupence, kterým dle jejich slov úplně změnil život, což je samo o sobě důvodem se ho snažit pochopit, když už pro nic jiného, tak abych byl například připraven že z nich neudělá svůj sebevražedný kult. Tahle diskuze imho ale stejně nemá smysl, protože mám čím dál víc pocit, že jsem jediný kdo si to fakt pustil a dokoukal.

[deda.jabko]

poukázáním na to že milion lidí (včetně mě) to zajímavým shledalo.

Miliony lidi taky sleduji (shledavaji zajimavym) Olympiadu a taky to nevede k řešení žádného problému, k pochopení čehokoliv zajímavého. Ergo, tato argumentace neni prilis validni a docela se podoba argumentaci ad populum.

Tahle diskuze imho ale stejně nemá smysl, protože mám čím dál víc pocit, že jsem jediný kdo si to fakt pustil a dokoukal.

Priznam se, ze mi Peterson prijde stejne zajimavy jako ta Olympiada, takze jsem nevidel ani jedno z toho.

[Bystroushaak]

Miliony lidi taky sleduji (shledavaji zajimavym) Olympiadu a taky to nevede k řešení žádného problému, k pochopení čehokoliv zajímavého. Ergo, tato argumentace neni prilis validni a docela se podoba argumentaci ad populum.

Ano, vskutku, ty miliony lidí nejsou postačující podmínka, i když jsou postačující podmínka pro definici něčeho jako „zajímavého“. K pochopení pak vede ta diskuze, která je celá jen o pochopení dvou lidí sebe navzájem.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

že z nich neudělá svůj sebevražedný kult

Proud Boys

[_]

To je stejné jako s tou zmiňovanou Paris Hilton, ne? Původní příspěvek to tedy nerozporuje.

[Ysanne]

Že někdo plácá taková nemoudra pochopím. To se stává. Ale že to někdo poslouchá, čte a ještě o tom se svazáckým nadšením bloguje, to mi mozek nebere. Ale jsem jen blondýna.

[Bystroushaak]

A chceš to pochopit? Můžeš se volně ptát a já se pokusím odpovědět podle svého nejlepšího svědomí.

[Ysanne]

Kde je tam v tom plácání nějaká myšlenka?

[Bystroushaak]

Myšlenek je tam imho spousta. Ty dva linkované články na konci se věnují detailnější analýze. Pokud se ti to zdá jako plácání, může to mít víc důvodů. Například možná třeba jen nejsi cílové publikum. Nebo nemáš dost kontextu k pochopení toho o čem vlastně mluví. Nebo jsi tak geniální, že všechny probírané problémy už nemáš potřebu řešit, je ti jasné jakým způsobem ovlivňují svět kolem tebe a jsi s tím ok.

[Ysanne]

Genialita je zjevně relativní pojem. Pro tebe jsem geniální, pro mě jsou ty páni tlachalové. Ano, nic nevyřešeného tam v té diskusi není.

[Bystroushaak]

Vážně? Můžeš třeba rozvést jednotlivá témata? Vskutku by mě to zajímalo.

[Ysanne]

Rozveď ty, co ti přijde zajímavé a nevíš si s tím rady.

[Bystroushaak]

Například: existuje apriori struktura univerzálně sdílených hodnot a pokud ano, jaká je? Jde z ní derivovat obecná společensky stabilní morálka vhodná pro masy s rozdílnou inteligencí, kde někteří mají tendence následovat věci aniž by jim rozuměli?

Nebo; Pokud odvrhneš náboženství a cílíš svůj život ke štěstí, co budeš dělat ve chvíli kdy o štěstí (happiness) nejenom přijdeš, ale bude doslova nemožné? Co bude to co ti dodá sílu jít dál?

[Ysanne]

Například: existuje apriori struktura univerzálně sdílených hodnot

Neexistuje (nad rámec obecné savčí či primátí etologie).

pokud ano, jaká je

viz učebnice etologie

Jde z ní derivovat obecná společensky stabilní morálka vhodná pro masy s rozdílnou inteligencí, kde někteří mají tendence následovat věci aniž by jim rozuměli?

Jistě že lze, na úrovni tlupy hominidních primátů.

co budeš dělat ve chvíli kdy o štěstí (happiness) nejenom přijdeš

Budu se snažit ho opět získat, co taky jiného?

ale bude doslova nemožné

To je imho nesmysl. Pokud ti to jako nesmysl nepřijde, popiš takovou situaci.

Co bude to co ti dodá sílu jít dál?

Přinejmenším vlastní vůle. Ostatní dle konkrétní situace.

[Bystroushaak]

Neexistuje (nad rámec obecné savčí či primátí etologie).

Proč? Co to znamená?

viz učebnice etologie

Na to asi nemám ani čas, ani náladu.

Jistě že lze, na úrovni tlupy hominidních primátů.

To je odpověď na úplně jinou otázku.

Budu se snažit ho opět získat, co taky jiného?

Možností je docela hodně. Například se naučit žít bez něj (stoicismus), nebo se odosobnit (zen), ale našel bych asi i další.

To je imho nesmysl. Pokud ti to jako nesmysl nepřijde, popiš takovou situaci.

Bolestivá nemoc končící smrtí. Třeba rakovina.

Přinejmenším vlastní vůle. Ostatní dle konkrétní situace.

Tu máš vzít kde? Já třeba nijak super vůli nemám. Samozřejmě to bylo myšleno abstraktně ohledně ostatních lidí v tvém okolí. Až ti bude umírat bratr nebo dítě, tak mu řekneš ať mu pomůže vlastní vůle?

[JS1]

Nemuzu si pomoct, zda se mi, ze proste hledas viru. Coz prirozene zahrne i jeji seberacionalizaci.

To neni nic proti nicemu, ale zda se mi, ze eventualne nastane jedna z moznosti - bud to hledani vzdas, a nebo se vzdas toho, ze budes vsude uplne racionalni (a pak ti vlastne tyhle debaty nic neprinesou, krome emocionalniho zazitku z boje).

[Bystroushaak]

Nemuzu si pomoct, zda se mi, ze proste hledas viru. Coz prirozene zahrne i jeji seberacionalizaci.

Upřímně, já nehledám nic. Už před mnoha lety jsem tu psal, že jsem +- za jedno s Taoismem, když od toho člověk odečte náboženství a zbyde mu jen filosofie.

Zato lidi kolem mě padaj jak mouchy. Doslova každou chvíli řeším lidi s depresí, nebo lidi co se sice nemají špatně, ale vůbec netuší proč vlastně existují a jsou celkově nešťastní. Už mě to upřímně začíná unavovat a hodil by se mi nějaký kongitivní framework, který na ně prostě hodím a on už jim nějak naformátuje život.

[JS1]

Takovy framework uz existuje - CBT. Ale jelikoz jsme socialni druh, tak to asi nikdy nebude fungovat stylem "fire and forget".

[Bystroushaak]

Co je CBT?

[JS1]

Kognitivne-behavioralni terapie. Nejsem odbornik, ale prijde mi, ze urcita cast toho je proste "fake it till you make it".

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

Asi myslí kognitivně-behaviorální terapii na tu depresi. K tomu se dá dodat, že účinnost CBT je stále kontroverzní téma a obecně se spíše začíná ukazovat, že ta efektivita vůbec není tak dobrá, jak se dříve tvrdilo, mj. také díky chybám v dřivějších studiích etc.

[JS1]

Ono to neni jen na depresi.. treba ja mel depresi z uzkosti, takze spousta depresi je IMHO jen projev nejakeho jineho (zanedbaneho) psychologickeho problemu.

A na hodne z tech problemu (treba uzkost) se hodi CBT celkem dobre. IMHO je to jako u ostatniho zdravi, cim jsi zdravejsi, tim snazsi a ucinnejsi je lecba.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

Nemuzu si pomoct, zda se mi, ze proste hledas viru. Coz prirozene zahrne i jeji seberacionalizaci.

S timhle souhlasim, akorát si nemyslim, že "víra" je to správné slovo. Na druhou stranu nemám úplně lepší slovo. Řekl bych "životní filosofie" ale to je takový moc vznešený a stejně to není ono.

To neni nic proti nicemu, ale zda se mi, ze eventualne nastane jedna z moznosti - bud to hledani vzdas, a nebo se vzdas toho, ze budes vsude uplne racionalni (a pak ti vlastne tyhle debaty nic neprinesou, krome emocionalniho zazitku z boje).

Tohle je mem, který opravdu nemám moc rád, tj. ta falešná dichotomie mezi vírou/filosofií a racionalitou.

Já třeba to mám tak, že nemůžu být ateista ani kdybych chtěl, protože poločas rozpadu mého ateismu je tak maximálně několik měsíců, spíše ale o dost míň. Trvá přesně do doby, než si samovolně vytvořim nějakou hypotézu á la '42', jako už jsem zmínil. Prostě pozoruju, že existuje vědomý život, že má nějaké vlastnosti, že např. lidé celkem univerzálně rozlišují 'dobré' a 'špatné' atd., tak mi celkem automaticky vzniká nějaká myšlenka, nějaká abstrakce, která poskytuje nějaký framework pro vysvětlení, proč to tak je, odvození věcí, atd. To, jestli v rámci toho frameworku se vyskytují nebo nevyskytují deity je víceméně už jen implementační detail. Stejně jako je nepodstatné to, že nemůžu moc tu hypotézu ověřovat, což je to, s čím měl velkej problém kyknos. To, že to nemůžu do důsledku ověřit, je prostě smůla, s tím nemůžu nic dělat, ale přece to neznamená, že tu hypotézu mít nesmim nebo že je na tom něco iracionálního. Vědci také postulují různé hypotézy, které nelze ověřit třeba ještě desetiletí potom, případně se toho vůbec nedožijou.

Ateismus je IMHO v podstatě pouze o tom, že se na tu otázku nesoustředíš, bereš to tak, jak to je, a neřešíš. Stejně jako to člověk dělá u X dalších jevů, protože řešit všechno prostě nejde.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

Na to jde právě aplikovat tu praktickou (terapeutickou) část např. stoicismu (nebo některých více méně ekvivalentních orientálních tradic):

1. neztrácet čas mentální masturbací
2. neztrácet čas, energii, ani vyrovnanost tím, co nemůžeš ovlivnit
3. v praxi žít ctnostně, ať už bohové (resp. možno dosadit si libovolný posmrtný soud) existují, či nikoliv

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

v praxi žít ctnostně, ať už bohové (resp. možno dosadit si libovolný posmrtný soud) existují, či nikoliv

Pro mě je ten framework užitečný mimo jiné k tomu, abych si právě ujasnil, co znamená cnost nebo v čem jsou špatné stránky jiných frameworků (např. třeba to křesťanství), mj. abych třeba věděl, jak na ně reagovat atd. Dále taky abych si ujasnil některé priority apod., ie. nemám to jen jako mentální masturbaci, i když uznávám, že ty aspekty to má

[Fluttershy, yay!]

V tom kontextu je to areté (ἀρετή), čímž je věc zcela objasněna…_/s

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

No, tak jasný Já jsem spíš poslední dobou příznivec Humata, Hukhta, Hvarshta, ale ono principielně to je víceméně na jedno brdo, hlavně v tom, jak jsou tyhle koncepty vágní a že stojí a padají s nějakou intuicí.

Jinak myslim si, že i ten stoicismus + areté + další principy antické filosofie dělají ve výsledku takový systém "víry", akorát je to třeba víc minimalistický systém méně zatížený nějakou mytologií, rituály, politikou a podobně.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

V principu jde o přirozenost subjektu, v případě stoicismu je člověk tvor společenský a racionální, čímž se odlišuje od jiných tvorů (jejich areté se liší). S moderní biologií tu „přirozenost“ můžeme definovat lépe… samozřejmě to pak ale naráží na otázku transhumanismu.

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

Já třeba to mám tak, že nemůžu být ateista ani kdybych chtěl, protože poločas rozpadu mého ateismu je tak maximálně několik měsíců, spíše ale o dost míň. Trvá přesně do doby, než si samovolně vytvořim nějakou hypotézu á la '42', jako už jsem zmínil.

Zajimave, ja jsem to mel driv (kdyz jsem o techhle vecech premyslel) presne naopak.

že např. lidé celkem univerzálně rozlišují 'dobré' a 'špatné' atd.

To ma jednoduche vysvetleni, lide maji temer shodnou DNA.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

Jo a přes polovinu shodnou s banánem.

[Bystroushaak]

+1 :D

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

To sice jo, protoze velka cast komplexity organismu je ve vnitrnim fungovani bunky... ale diff DNA mezi dvema lidmi bude o nekolik radu mensi nez diff mezi clovekem a bananem.

[JS1]

Ano, a proto neprekvapi, ze i vice nez polovina naseho moralniho kodu je shodna s banany. Napriklad v pripade globalniho oteplovani, podobne jako banany v klidu cekame na vlastni vyhynuti, misto toho, abychom se snazili problem nejak resit.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

To ma jednoduche vysvetleni, lide maji temer shodnou DNA.

Tak jasně, o Sobeckém genu vím (to mi taky kyknos sáhodlouze omlácel o hlavu), jenže to je v podstatě odpověď na jinou otázku.

Ve filosofii matematiky eixstuje sáhodlouhá rozsáhlá debata o tom, jestli matematické zákony objektivně existují (ie. jsou vlastností světa), nebo jestli to jsou pouze konstrukty lidského uvažování, případně něco mezi tím. U matematiky se jistě taky dá popsat ten evoluční mechanismus, jakým se u člověka vyvinula, ale to na tu otázku neodpovídá.

No a stejná otázka se nabízí i u dobra/zla. Např. je imho zajímavé se zamyslet, analogicky k té matematice, jestli by případné mimozemské civilizace měly také koncepty dobra/zla a jak moc by byly stejné/jiné.

U toho dobra/zla mi ta anti-realistická pozice přijde trochu nebezpečná v tom, že potenciálně umožňuje ultimátní morální relativismus. V praxi to ale asi je jedno, protože 'zlí' lidé většinou filosofii neřeší a 'dobří' koneckonců většinou taky ne...

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

Sobecky gen jsem necetl...

S tou matematikou... trochu neomalene a zkreslene bych rekl, ze matematika popisuje patterny ve fyzickem svete. Stroj, ktery matematicky modeluje nejaky fyzikalni system, napriklad planetarni soustavu, bude fungovat i na nejake vzdalene planete obydlene mimozemstany, kteri se ho mohou naucit pouzivat a pochopit jeho vnitrni fungovani. Klidne to muze but notebook s nainstalovanym programem Mathematica - bude to realna, fyzicka vec. Ale namam na tohle uplne vyjasneny nazor.

Oproti tomu ta otazka dobra/zla je imho celkem primocara. Ano ten realisticky/biologicky pohled na svet muze byt na prvni pohled nebezpecny... ale za sebe muzu rict ze v praxi to nema na emocni vnimani dobra/zla zadny negativni efekt.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

Ale namam na tohle uplne vyjasneny nazor.

Já taky ne a ani mi tím komentářem nešlo o to nějak na to hledat odpověď nebo diskutovat na to téma...

Oproti tomu ta otazka dobra/zla je imho celkem primocara.

Proč? V čem je to jiný než ta matematika? Dokonce by se to i dalo propojit a spekulovat, že lidský koncept dobra/zla je evolucí získaná aproximace nějakého obecného herně-teoretického (ie. matematického) principu, a v té chvíli by, pokud by objektivně existovaly matematické principy, mohly i objketivně existovat dobro a zlo...

(Neříkám, že to tak je, jen takový myšlenkový experiment.)

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

Proč? V čem je to jiný než ta matematika? Dokonce by se to i dalo propojit a spekulovat, že lidský koncept dobra/zla je evolucí získaná aproximace nějakého obecného herně-teoretického (ie. matematického) principu, a v té chvíli by, pokud by objektivně existovaly matematické principy, mohly i objketivně existovat dobro a zlo...

Protoze to ma jednoduche vysvetleni. Koncepty dobra a zla a s nimi spojene emoce, napr. pocit viny, jsou principialne podobne jinym emocim, jako napr. strach. Je to vysledek nasi DNA a prostredi (do ktereho spada i kultura).

Ano, dobro a zlo objektivne existuji ve smyslu, ze pokud by mimozemstani studovali lidsky druh, tak by si zaznamenali, ze pouzivame koncept dobra a zla. A je mozne ze neco podobneho existuje v nekterych mimozemskych civilizacich, coz plati pro vsechny emoce, vlastnosti nebo prvky lidske kultury - napriklad muze existovat obdoba zavisti nebo pohadek. Jinymi slovy, dobro/zlo je pro me otazka antropologie/psychologie/sociologie/biologie, nic dalsiho v tom nevidim.

Je mozne ze ta matematika je v necem podobna, nevim... pokud ano, tak to nic nemeni na predchozim odstavci.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

Protoze to ma jednoduche vysvetleni. Koncepty dobra a zla a s nimi spojene emoce, napr. pocit viny, jsou principialne podobne jinym emocim, jako napr. strach. Je to vysledek nasi DNA a prostredi (do ktereho spada i kultura).

Nevidim, jakým způsobem je tohle vysvětlení. Přijde mi, že jsi pouze v podstatě jinými slovy zopakoval to, co jsem napsal už na začátku:

že např. lidé celkem univerzálně rozlišují 'dobré' a 'špatné' atd.

Samozřejmě, že to mají v DNA a/nebo coby víceméně univerzální kulturní mem (viz Cultural universal), nepředpokládal jsem, že by si to lidi nosili na floppy disketách nebo něco takového...

Tu otázku, která mě na tom zajímá, jsem, myslím si, vysvětlil v předchozích komentářích, jestli to nepomohlo, tak už moc nevím, jak to říct jinak.

[Bystroushaak]

Mimochodem ta definice dobra a zla je docela zajímavou částí diskutovanou ve videích. Harris na to jde poměrně zajímavým způsobem.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

Ok, bude-li čas, mrknu...

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

Hm, nepomohlo...

Kazdopadne, jeste abych upresnil muj pohled: kdyz se lide bavi o objektivni etice, nemysli tim myslenkovy framework / emoce / chovani, to prokazatelne existuje. Mysli tim, ze existuji principy, podle kterych by se lide *meli* ridit protoze... proto. To je imho nesmysl.

Predstava ze neexistuje nejaky "vyssi" duvod proc nejednat neeticky (krome toho ze to vetsinou vyvola nejakou neprijemnou emoci jako pocit viny) je pro spoustu lidi velmi znepokojujici, proto vymysli ruzne mentalni konstrukty, ktere tomuto pohledu odporuji.

[kralyk z abclinuxu]

Mysli tim, ze existuji principy, podle kterych by se lide *meli* ridit protoze... proto. To je imho nesmysl.

To je nešťastně formulováno, ta 'morální obligace' (což je si myslim to, co na tom ateisty primárně dráždí) tam není potřeba. Můžem to přeformulovat tak, že v případě té objektivní etiky existují principy podle kterých je výhodné/prospěšné se řídit. Právě proto jsem to přirovnával k té matematice - když budeš chtít spočítat obsah čtverce, tak máš daná nějaká pravidla, ale nikdo po tobě striktně vzato nechce, aby ses jimi řídil, klidně na to můžeš jít jinak. Akorát je prostě fajn na to jít tím 'správným' způsobem, protože vede ke správnému výsledku...

Další věc, kterou bych zmínil, aby to pro ateistu bylo stravitelnější, je, že i pokud nakrásně objektivní etika existuje, vůbec to neznamená, že ten který člověk/skupina ji zná. Tj. ani existence objektivní etiky nedává žádnému konkrétnímu náboženství/filosofii/organizaci/atd. mandát něco po lidech vyžadovat na základě objektivní morálky.

Například katolická církev nemá tím pádem právo zbytek společnosti za něco peskovat i v případě, že Bůh existuje. Bohužel katolická církev věří nejenom v existenci Boha, ale ještě navíc také tomu, že si umí Boha správně nebo dostatečně správně vykládat. Což mi ve výsledku přijde jako mnohem silnější, závažnější a nebezpečnější přesvědčení než víra v Boha jako taková.

Kdyby se církev spokojila s prostou vírou v Boha a přiznala, že si vůbec není jistá, jestli mu vlastně dobře rozumí a jestli ho třeba nechápe úplně blbě, tak by s ní nejspíš nebyly ani zdaleka takové problémy.

Predstava ze neexistuje nejaky "vyssi" duvod proc nejednat neeticky (krome toho ze to vetsinou vyvola nejakou neprijemnou emoci jako pocit viny) je pro spoustu lidi velmi znepokojujici, proto vymysli ruzne mentalni konstrukty, ktere tomuto pohledu odporuji.

No tak samozřejmě, protože pokud je etika pouze produkt nějaké minulé periody lidské evoluce, pak se může celkem snadno trpět různými evolučními problémy, viz např. Evolutionary mismatch nebo jiné, a vlastně pak přestává existovat racionální důvod, proč se chovat eticky, kromě toho, že člověk může prostě věřit evoluci, nicméně zdaleka není neomylná (viz např. naše neschopnost syntetizovat vitamin C atd. atp.).

Jinak já osobně se to snažim vnímat spíš z té pozitivně-definované stránky: Je pro mě příjemnější, když existuje "vyšší" důvod proč jednat eticky. Samozřejmě to neznamená, že kdyby nebyl, jednal bych neeticky, ale přijde mi to takové lepší ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Člověk z Horní Dolní]

Můžem to přeformulovat tak, že v případě té objektivní etiky existují principy podle kterých je výhodné/prospěšné se řídit.

V tom pripade samozrejme souhlasim.

[Fluttershy, yay!]

A proto je užitečný quinovský pragmatismus.