Highly recommended movie: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3704700/It clearly takes as an unexamined underlying assumption the belief that medical knowledge is complete and doctors omniscient. Ergo anything they can't diagnose must therefore be due to the sufferer's "wrong thoughts".
Highly recommended movie: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3704700/
Also, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104756/
Both cases where "typical" doctors were powerless. Took a really special doctor to diagnose the first one and in the second case, well, it's too ridiculous to be true but it is.
The note about Peterson not being a neuroscientist, and him being a psychologist having no bearing on his ethical state were originally two separate points. The point still stands that Peterson being in a profession that to some extent addresses ethics and morality as a matter of course does not have any bearing on his personal ethics or being a moral person himself.I was not implying that an interest in neuroscience or a degree in it makes a person ethical. I said that anybody in the field of psychology seeking to understand the source of ethical behavior, why one person is more ethical, say than another, would be a person who would automatically gravitate toward the acquisition of an understanding of that field. So that does not mean he is moral, but it suggests his delving into that subject would be natural for a person with morality interests.
So the answer to the question of will my arguments be evaluated on their own merits is, "No." You've already effectively said so before, so I knew the answer, but it's good to have it reiterated so clearly. You're always going to assume that I (everyone) have never thought about my opinions, I just assume they are obviously right solely because I believe them. I conjure up piles of garbage to live my life in. I protect myself from the truth with outrage and take everything you say as an insult because I hate myself, instead of recognizing your pearls of wisdom, the swine that I am. I am living a life of abject depression and hopelessness. You are merely a servant here to save all sentient beings following in the footsteps of the Zen Master who saved you.Think of it like this. Here I (you) was living my life full of all kinds of opinions I had never thought about since they were obviously right or I wouldn't have believed them. They are the same beliefs of other people with sound reasoning and here comes the gad fly who says wait a darn minute here, how do you know all this stuff I have no idea about. Isn't he aware that he doesn't know anything just like me? Doesn't he know the absolute danger he puts himself in if he actually delusional. Imagine the piles of garbage he can conjure up as real to live his life in. I better tell him his condition so he can do something about it if he can see what I am saying. I know it's not going to be easy for him. The price I had to pay to realize I know nothing was all the ego pride and all safety of certainty I used to have when I was that way.
Should I even try? What kind of stupid question is that, Moonbeam. What do I have to lose, I already lost everything. Don't be a chicken shit, give the guy a heads up. Could I possibly make him any worse off than he already is? But what if I hurt his feelings and he feels I don't value him or respect his pile of cabbage? Meh! all us self haters feel that way. You can't tell us anything we won't turn into an insult. We believe we know what those are because we don't see we don't know anything of the kind. How did anybody come up with a saying like casting pearls before swine if people protect themselves from the truth with outrage. Haven't I said we are created in God's image or we created Him in ours. What more do you want? Shall I complement you on your beautiful eyes.
I was headed for a life in a state of abject depression and hopelessness and some Zen Master hit me in the back of the head with a strawberry. That all vanished the moment I tasted it. I vow to save all sentient beings but its fine too if you are not interested.
You are stuck with everything you believe, but nothing says you have to be a believer.
Look, I said you have a sense of humor because you don't seem to see that those posts you are objecting to are me playing the role of a know it, opinionated idiot. I decided to give ch33zw1z a taste of his own medicine and a look at how he acts. Naturally is just what I see, my opinion as it were.
Mind if I do the same regarding my opinion about your opinion?Things he has said…on recordings, on social media. Its not my opinion, im simply someone reviewing things he had actually said and offering my opinion.
Not sure if you are making up something here. Are you claiming a bunch of the same opinions constitute an accepted truth?Im not sure where you drop off here, but nobody is making things up for JP. He says a LOT of stuff. Like someone else i know
This is the peer review of words.
How is this any different than saying the more my opinions about something I regard as sacred scientific truth that we must trust and believe is factually true before we will act on it changes from being mere countervailing opinion to a dangerous nut whose opinions have to be denigrated viciously because more and more people may start to take his bull shit seriously?When it comes to JP making statements about topics that involve science, this changes the topic to something else, its becomes more and the critique becomes more.
The simple answer to these two questions as put is yes put please indulge me in a bit of charity. Long ago I was told words that crystalized for me an inner attitude that had developed in me long before when I started noticing that people believe all sorts of lies that comfort them psychologically and those words were these: The so called wise men are fools. I told you I have had a transformative experience that set me free from hopeless despair because I was too mercilessly honest to but my own lies and that losing them cost me everything and that before that happened I desperately read everything I knew about from Western philosophy that created a philosophy of meaning for others. I found it all to be meaningless garbage to me. I wondered how bright men like Einstein, who I worshiped and Edward Teller whom I despised could be so different but so widely if held in regard by different kinds of people. My answer to that eventually became some have heart and some don't, some have emotional intelligence which means to me having empathy and some are motivated more by self interest in a quest for external ego gratification.Does JP spreading pseudoscience not bother you?
Does JP claiming to hold credentials that he doesnt hold not bother you?
Mind if I do the same regarding my opinion about your opinion?
Not sure if you are making up something here. Are you claiming a bunch of the same opinions constitute an accepted truth?
How is this any different than saying the more my opinions about something I regard as sacred scientific truth that we must trust and believe is factually true before we will act on it changes from being mere countervailing opinion to a dangerous nut whose opinions have to be denigrated viciously because more and more people may start to take his bull shit seriously?
The simple answer to these two questions as put is yes put please indulge me in a bit of charity. Long ago I was told words that crystalized for me an inner attitude that had developed in me long before when I started noticing that people believe all sorts of lies that comfort them psychologically and those words were these: The so called wise men are fools. I told you I have had a transformative experience that set me free from hopeless despair because I was too mercilessly honest to but my own lies and that losing them cost me everything and that before that happened I desperately read everything I knew about from Western philosophy that created a philosophy of meaning for others. I found it all to be meaningless garbage to me. I wondered how bright men like Einstein, who I worshiped and Edward Teller whom I despised could be so different but so widely if held in regard by different kinds of people. My answer to that eventually became some have heart and some don't, some have emotional intelligence which means to me having empathy and some are motivated more by self interest in a quest for external ego gratification.
In short the wise men man indeed truly be fools and the degrees attached to their names mean absolutely nothing. So the worth of a person in my opinion is related to the values they hold inwardly and is to be seen only in what I hear them say and not in the titles they bear. Peterson could be a garbage collector for all I care. I hear empathy in his intentions. Does that mean I agree with everything he says. I listen and form my own opinion. When I listen I think I see the intent of his words. He complains that liberals are blind to certain realities because they belong to a sacred club of knowers who hold the rest of us in contempt. He says they are nuts and dangerously blind and also their own worst enemies. I have sympathy for that world view as being partially right. In my opinion it just happens to be true of practically everybody. Sadly, although I would love to be able to justify my contempt for everybody, I know it's not their fault. We were forcibly to sleep and threatened with death if we dared to wake up.
Bottom line, I didn't notice Peterson't crime because the what others might see as self agrandizement buys you nothing with me.
There were so many big words in there that mean nothing to me that I almost believed the guy had something real to say other than. poof, watch me turn Peterson into a dragon. Did I mention I am not looking to be persuaded by somebody's opinion. I am looking for how they can prove why they hold it. "I have the following opinion and I have it for the following assumed reasons." Sorry but I can't make those same assumptions because I don't believe in assuming things.
And interesting take
You don't know anything of the kind. The only one who could know that is me. My behavior was fake. I was not triggered. I learned long ago that if you point out a person's unexamined assumption to them they will deny it as factual but if you pretend to criticize someone they do not like, they will agree with it immediately. Anybody with an ounce of integrity will have the proper attitude to be able to see that see it eventually. Hopefully you just need more time.It's this old chestnut again:
Page 5 - Opinion: Jordan Peterson has always been a crank
Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.forums.anandtech.com
Whether you're waxing philosophical about people emotionally knee-jerk reacting to stuff or you're doing exactly that yourself, I know at this point that you're not going to confront *your* unprovoked behaviour, publicly or privately.
That is what I said. I simply said that an interest in moral issues would drive an interest in neuroscience such that an interest in neuroscience might indicate the motivation for that interest is a parallel interest in morality. So while you can't assume neither should you dismiss.The note about Peterson not being a neuroscientist, and him being a psychologist having no bearing on his ethical state were originally two separate points. The point still stands that Peterson being in a profession that to some extent addresses ethics and morality as a matter of course does not have any bearing on his personal ethics or being a moral person himself.
You have understood that point as clearly as mud. I am not interested in the merits of your opinions. Nothing I think or say can change any truth of validity they may have. That stands independently and all on its own. Having spent a lifetime looking at how my mind works, how I assume what can't be known, how ego and pride make me defensive and feel threatened by people who disagree with me, how I take great joy in being a member of the one and only truth knowers club, I am saying be on the lookout for such things and whether you do so or not is up to you.So the answer to the question of will my arguments be evaluated on their own merits is, "No." You've already effectively said so before, so I knew the answer, but it's good to have it reiterated so clearly.
You think I don't know what you do, that I am unwilling to consider what you have right. You sound to me just as you describe me to be. You are unwilling to consider what you may have wrong. But I think you will lose nothing by doing so.You're always going to assume that I (everyone) have never thought about my opinions, I just assume they are obviously right solely because I believe them. I conjure up piles of garbage to live my life in. I protect myself from the truth with outrage and take everything you say as an insult because I hate myself, instead of recognizing your pearls of wisdom, the swine that I am. I am living a life of abject depression and hopelessness. You are merely a servant here to save all sentient beings following in the footsteps of the Zen Master who saved you.
I still think Peterson is a disingenuous grifter.
Let's parse this out.That is what I said. I simply said that an interest in moral issues would drive an interest in neuroscience such that an interest in neuroscience might indicate the motivation for that interest is a parallel interest in morality. So while you can't assume neither should you dismiss.
You could have stopped at, "I am not interested in the merits of your opinions." If you are not interested in those then we are not having a discussion. What we are doing is I am saying something on the subject of this thread, and you are ignoring it and talking about yourself and/or me.You have understood that point as clearly as mud. I am not interested in the merits of your opinions. Nothing I think or say can change any truth of validity they may have. That stands independently and all on its own. Having spent a lifetime looking at how my mind works, how I assume what can't be known, how ego and pride make me defensive and feel threatened by people who disagree with me, how I take great joy in being a member of the one and only truth knowers club, I am saying be on the lookout for such things and whether you do so or not is up to you.
You assume I am unwilling to consider what I may have wrong, something you have oddly said you don't do. But instead of talking about the substance of what I may have wrong you talk about my inability to accept that I might be wrong, how the nature of me makes it likely that I'm wrong, how I wouldn't even be able to know if I was wrong. You project unwillingness and unawareness onto me and everyone else. Just one post up you replied to @ch33zw1z that they cannot know what they say they know about you, only you can know that. Yet you tell me and everyone else you do know about us. You are somehow the only one who is unable to be known. The rest of what you said suggests to me that I should simply ignore anything you say about my motivations and my unconscious and the reasons why I say what I say or believe what I believe unless they are relevant, so I shall endeavor to do so. I realize I have been drawn down into your singularity again but I have difficulty learning as you well know.You think I don't know what you do, that I am unwilling to consider what you have right. You sound to me just as you describe me to be. You are unwilling to consider what you may have wrong. But I think you will lose nothing by doing so.
Put differently. You own what you have right. What you have right nobody can really take from you. You don’t have to protect it, stand up for it, get defensive if challenged on it. The only objective a truth seeker should have is not resting on laurels but trying to deepen your understanding. I am sharing what little I know about self deception. Use it or not as you wish. If there is anything in what I say nothing you do will take it from me.
Good news.Let's parse this out.
Peterson has an interest in moral issues.
The interest in moral issues drives an interest in neuroscience, which could also be phrased as the interest in moral issues motivates an interest in neuroscience.
Thus the interest in neuroscience might indicate that the interest in morality is a parallel interest in morality.
Yes, that parses.
You have just done a math test on which you have scored 99 out of a hundred and you proceed to describe the math you did. Are we going to jump up and down that you got 99 right or do you want to know what went wrong that you missed one. The test paper said you missed one and I graded your paper. What do you want to talk about?You could have stopped at, "I am not interested in the merits of your opinions." If you are not interested in those then we are not having a discussion. What we are doing is I am saying something on the subject of this thread, and you are ignoring it and talking about yourself and/or me.
Your confusion here is rather easy to spot, I think. Tou have equated conscious kin’s with unconscious lying. I am wondering if you are referring to this:You assume I am unwilling to consider what I may have wrong, something you have oddly said you don't do. But instead of talking about the substance of what I may have wrong you talk about my inability to accept that I might be wrong, how the nature of me makes it likely that I'm wrong, how I wouldn't even be able to know if I was wrong. You project unwillingness and unawareness onto me and everyone else. Just one post up you replied to @ch33zw1z that they cannot know what they say they know about you, only you can know that. Yet you tell me and everyone else you do know about us. You are somehow the only one who is unable to be known. The rest of what you said suggests to me that I should simply ignore anything you say about my motivations and my unconscious and the reasons why I say what I say or believe what I believe unless they are relevant, so I shall endeavor to do so. I realize I have been drawn down into your singularity again but I have difficulty learning as you well know.
Also, Jordan Peterson is a confabulator.
A discussion isn't a math test. Is everything right or wrong for you? True or false? The answer is yes.You have just done a math test on which you have scored 99 out of a hundred and you proceed to describe the math you did. Are we going to jump up and down that you got 99 right or do you want to know what went wrong that you missed one. The test paper said you missed one and I graded your paper. What do you want to talk about?
Huh. How do you know what other people are conscious or unconscious of? I mean, you do know, right? Or are you just guessing?Your confusion here is rather easy to spot, I think. Tou have equated conscious kin’s with unconscious lying. I am wondering if you are referring to this:
“Whether you're waxing philosophical about people emotionally knee-jerk reacting to stuff or you're doing exactly that yourself, I know at this point that you're not going to confront *your* unprovoked behaviour, publicly or privately.” That was said by mikeymikec
Obviously I and I alone know if what I said was a conscious lie but if l am lying to myself unconsciously you might see that better than I. That, I think is where you went wrong there.
Man, I wish you would learn this.Saying something does not make it true.
I applaud both your efforts to attempt to break through the Shield of Esoteric Navel-Gazing and your acknowledgement that it's likely a fruitless endeavor.Let's parse this out.
Peterson has an interest in moral issues.
The interest in moral issues drives an interest in neuroscience, which could also be phrased as the interest in moral issues motivates an interest in neuroscience.
Thus the interest in neuroscience might indicate that the interest in morality is a parallel interest in morality.
Yes, that parses.
You could have stopped at, "I am not interested in the merits of your opinions." If you are not interested in those then we are not having a discussion. What we are doing is I am saying something on the subject of this thread, and you are ignoring it and talking about yourself and/or me.
You assume I am unwilling to consider what I may have wrong, something you have oddly said you don't do. But instead of talking about the substance of what I may have wrong you talk about my inability to accept that I might be wrong, how the nature of me makes it likely that I'm wrong, how I wouldn't even be able to know if I was wrong. You project unwillingness and unawareness onto me and everyone else. Just one post up you replied to @ch33zw1z that they cannot know what they say they know about you, only you can know that. Yet you tell me and everyone else you do know about us. You are somehow the only one who is unable to be known. The rest of what you said suggests to me that I should simply ignore anything you say about my motivations and my unconscious and the reasons why I say what I say or believe what I believe unless they are relevant, so I shall endeavor to do so. I realize I have been drawn down into your singularity again but I have difficulty learning as you well know.
Also, Jordan Peterson is a confabulator.
We began with you claiming that Peterson believes that climate is everything and the absurdity that climate is everything allows you to regard him the same, absurd, and therefore justifiably dismissible of serious attention, an opinion you clung to after I repeatedly tried to tell you his argument was something entirely different, that a collective group he calls the radical left have a defective perception of climate change that equates to making climate change a be all do or die, it’s everything, proposition, that they selectively model climate change suggest catastrophe and irrationally attack anything or anybody who denies the gravitas of their claims. He then likens how these radical liberals steeped in fear are in fact an authoritarian and an authoritarian threat.A discussion isn't a math test. Is everything right or wrong for you? True or false? The answer is yes.
I see my iPad auto spelling corrector typed something other than intended and I didn’t check for errors.Huh. How do you know what other people are conscious or unconscious of? I mean, you do know, right? Or are you just guessing?
A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. I specifically said it because I know how true it is. And what do I claim knowing requires?Man, I wish you would learn this.
You can always tell how starved for attention self hate makes people feel about themselves that they can imagine that by ignoring others they can achieve a measure of payback by attempting to pass onthat self contempt to others. It won’t be long and your ability to ignore all of existence will be fully complete.I finally put moonie on ignore and the thread quality has gone way up. Why didn't i do this sooner? 😂
We disagree about what his argument actually is and what he is actually saying. You disagreeing with me doesn't make you correct and me incorrect. That's what I was referring to when I said I wish you would learn that saying something doesn't make it true. You operate against that principle endlessly. You already told me you have no interest in the merits of my opinions, so odds are you didn't even evaluate anything I said.We began with you claiming that Peterson believes that climate is everything and the absurdity that climate is everything allows you to regard him the same, absurd, and therefore justifiably dismissible of serious attention, an opinion you clung to after I repeatedly tried to tell you his argument was something entirely different, that a collective group he calls the radical left have a defective perception of climate change that equates to making climate change a be all do or die, it’s everything, proposition, that they selectively model climate change suggest catastrophe and irrationally attack anything or anybody who denies the gravitas of their claims. He then likens how these radical liberals steeped in fear are in fact an authoritarian and an authoritarian threat.
I understood what you were meaning to type and replied to the intended meaning. I did not equate conscious lying with unconscious lying. You say you were not consciously lying and you know it. Yet you tell other people they operate unconsciously all the time. How do you know that? What is the asymmetry between you and everyone else that you can know that people are acting unconsciously but no one can know it of you? I've asked this question several times before so I know it's pointless, but in order to help you understand what my point was since you misunderstood, I ask it again. The rest of your statement seriously reads like you have a messiah complex. You do not say anything new. The difference with you is that you say it with the same level of certainty as a fundamentalist bible thumper screeching outside the student union on a college campus. And with the same ultimate result if this forum is anything to go by.I see my iPad auto spelling corrector typed something other than intended and I didn’t check for errors.
I wrote:
Your conppfusion here is rather easy to spot, I think. Tou have equated conscious kin’s p lying. I am wondering if you are referring to this:
That should have read:
Your confusion here is rather easy to spot, I think you have equated conscious lying with unconscious lying.
I was being accused of consciously lying, something even a polygraph can get wrong. I was not consciously lying and I know it. It’s an asshole move, in my opinion to accuse someone of thatCan I unconsciously lie, you bet! And you? I regard unconscious lying as a form of bigotry. It requires unconsciously accepted lies, unexamined assumptions and the assumptions and misperceptions you made about Peterson shouted that out in spades. You read what you were all too willing to believe about what Peterson said in that podcast and even now I think you aren’t quite ready to admit it. In order to help you see all of this I have known for decades I would be called every worthless thing under the sun. It is very very likely in my opinion that what I tell you you won’t hear anywhere else. Just your luck.
Try to act like it occasionally, please.A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. I specifically said it because I know how true it is. And what do I claim knowing requires?
This is a nice example of the sort of disingenuousness Peterson employs. Did you even read the article?Now the so called wise men are actually arguing with the EPA.
EPA says power plant carbon emissions aren't dangerous. We asked 30 scientists: Here's what they say
The Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency Wednesday proposed a new ruling that heat-trapping carbon gas “emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution.″ The Associated Press asked 30 different scientists, experts in climate,apnews.com
If Peterson says something and you say he said one thing and I say he said another would it not be factual that one of us more closely more closely approximates what he said than the other? That strikes me as pretty obvious. You told me what you thought he said, I went through a long detailed explanation as to why your argument made no sense in light of additional points he raised whereas you simply insisted you were right. In short I gave an explanation for why he said what I said that laid out the reasons why my opinion made sense and yours did not I also gave logical reasons for that. All you have ever been able to hear in my words is that I dismiss them for reasons and I then explained that how you heard that was as contorted as your view of Peterson. I have extended every courtesy I can think of to accommodate and answer your objections that I can think of. I doubt that anybody on this forum has paid more attention to you.We disagree about what his argument actually is and what he is actually saying. You disagreeing with me doesn't make you correct and me incorrect. That's what I was referring to when I said I wish you would learn that saying something doesn't make it true. You operate against that principle endlessly. You already told me you have no interest in the merits of my opinions, so odds are you didn't even evaluate anything I said.
I said a person knows when they are lying consciously and not when they do so unconsciously. That means and I said it means that I don't know when I am unconsciously lying. but I have known that forever. I told you how dangerous that is for a truth seeker and you proceeded to take offense.approximates what
I understood what you were meaning to type and replied to the intended meaning. I did not equate conscious lying with unconscious lying. You say you were not consciously lying and you know it. Yet you tell other people they operate unconsciously all the time. How do you know that? What is the asymmetry between you and everyone else that you can know that people are acting unconsciously but no one can know it of you?
Two mentions of a question. No sign of one. You mentioned you suffer from depression. I used to but no longer do. What would you do if the shoe were on the other foot?I've asked this question several times before so I know it's pointless, but in order to help you understand what my point was since you misunderstood, I ask it again. The rest of your statement seriously reads like you have a messiah complex. You do not say anything new. The difference with you is that you say it with the same level of certainty as a fundamentalist bible thumper screeching outside the student union on a college campus. And with the same ultimate result if this forum is anything to go by.
Try to act like it occasionally, please.
Well he's not here to be interrogated. And then there's the question of whether he would lie or tell the truth if he were. So we really do have your opinion and my opinion and everyone else's opinion, which some might argue is the nature of a forum. Your retelling of what I argued is your retelling. What did I say when I simply insisted I was right, and what was the context surrounding that? You have extended every courtesy to accommodate and answer my objections? Are you certain of that? Nobody on this forum has paid more attention to me than you? Wow. I guess I should be grateful to you. Speaking of posts you never responded to, what sort of god are you again?If Peterson says something and you say he said one thing and I say he said another would it not be factual that one of us more closely more closely approximates what he said than the other? That strikes me as pretty obvious. You told me what you thought he said, I went through a long detailed explanation as to why your argument made no sense in light of additional points he raised whereas you simply insisted you were right. In short I gave an explanation for why he said what I said that laid out the reasons why my opinion made sense and yours did not I also gave logical reasons for that. All you have ever been able to hear in my words is that I dismiss them for reasons and I then explained that how you heard that was as contorted as your view of Peterson. I have extended every courtesy I can think of to accommodate and answer your objections that I can think of. I doubt that anybody on this forum has paid more attention to you.
I accept your first sentence. Your second sentence is grammatically incoherent. You are projecting offense on me. How did I express my alleged offense?I said a person knows when they are lying consciously and not when they do so unconsciously. That means and I said it means that I don't know when I am unconsciously lying. but I have known that forever. I told you how dangerous that is for a truth seeker and you proceeded to take offense
The question is in your previous quote of mine. It's right there, quoted in your post. If the shoe was on the other foot I wouldn't pretend to know everything about your history, what you have gone through, what you are capable of knowing or understanding, why you believe the things that you do, whether you are conscious or unconscious when you are engaging with me, how you have questioned yourself. I wouldn't claim to know all of these things as a matter of fact, unlike you.Two mentions of a question. No sign of one. You mentioned you suffer from depression. I used to but no longer do. What would you do if the shoe were on the other foot?