Seriously? Everything JP said is accurate. He stated that we don't know the rules - there are no "rules" just social protocols which are interpreted differently by individuals, particularly from different sexes, ages, classes, social standing, nationality, etc. No, very few women are consciously wearing makeup in the workplace because they want sexual attention. But makeup is (by and large) a product of the natural biological urge to signal availability for "partnering", so actually, yes. Of course it doesn't warrant unwanted male response, but again, men usually understand the social protocol that the workplace is for work and not pursuing sexual partners, makeup or not...
The paradigm war is the distinction between positivism and analytic philosophy versus continental philosophy. I would disagree that Peterson is strictly a positivist given that he draws on the psychoanalytic perspectives of Freud and Jung. However, he is definitely a materialist/biological determinist researcher...although this may be shifting.
He is not alt right. And he has changed multiple peoples life. The left Coles him right in the right calls him left he thinks for himself and he does not belong to a group he doesn’t think politically he thinks as a Scientist and a psychologist. If this is what you boil Jordan Peterson down to I’m telling you you do not know him.
With regards to Zizek and Jordan Petersons “discussion,” which I’d like to stress was simply a discussion should not be critiqued by you with such ignorance. These two gems weren’t arguing… they agreed with each other about Marxism and mentioned potential solutions, WHICH where attained from a set of different structures and approaches. You won’t know how ignorant you are until you genuinely allow yourself to accept your ignorance and give yourself the chance to learn something, rather than living up to ONLY one’s standards (Dogma). Take for example, Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty. One of the things said by J.P. was, “Well you wouldn’t have art”, with regards to Christianity. The bigger picture is what he’s referring towards. Yes, of course we know and so does J.P. that there are magnificent pieces of secular art. What does what he’s saying actually mean?
Jordan is literally just being philosophically and semantically truthful. Why don’t you show your face next time you try to gaslight and insult entire populations of people.
NO NO NO NO you've gone far away Pat. I think you took the direction of your criticism on Jordan's thoughts to the personal side. By the way, was that you on this TH-cam th-cam.com/video/iq-JKy3t-Qc/w-d-xo.html Also, I didn't see any relationship about the assumptions of philosophy epist, onto.... etc with what the video contents were about. Sorry for my honesty, but you should read more about the paradigms and philosophical assumptions to know how it fits into the research.
I'm very curious to hear you say that - in what way do you think my critique of Peterson was personal? (full disclosure: I do have issues with some of his political positions, obviously, but that's not what I'd call a 'personal' criticism). My point here - maybe badly articulated because wine - is more to establish a contrast between different epistemological approaches to social science (and Jordan Peterson is such a man of the moment who engages in a lot of criticism of what he calls 'cultural marxist postmodernism' or whatever, that he provides a really good entry point for that kind of conversation). For example, I think he is generally wary of interpretivist approaches to social science (the sorts of things he inaccurately calls 'marxist') because they actively critique social structures and they're values-laden. This sits in contrast to a positivist approach which sort of excludes values as not relevant to understanding a phenomenon. That's the paradigm contrast we're discussing here (it's actually part two of a much larger conversation which goes into the assumptions of different paradigmatic positions). Happy to hear your thoughts on the matter - agree or disagree, either is interesting and welcome! You can check out some of the literature that informed this series of chats in the video description: Guba & Lincoln's stuff is generally (at least for qual ed researchers) a pretty decent overview of different perspectives (unless you're wanting the history of paradigm lit, in which case there's Kuhn's famous work, and I think Bruno LaTour is worth a read for something a bit different). And no, that's not me in the video you linked! For starters I'm not American, I wouldn't bother asking a question from the audience at an event, and I don't really know what the point of *challenging* Jordan Peterson would be (not that I really read that kid as doing that, he didn't really get to his question coz he was dancing around it so much). My point is more that there are multiple ways of learning about stuff - and I mean that in the empirical researchy sense as well - so I really don't get why people feel the need to try and shut down or attack researchers for operating in a different space. Sure, disagree about what causes phenomena, whether a particular theoretical framework is useful for understanding it, whether it is good or bad, etc etc. But shutting someone down just for asking those questions? That's dumb (and that cuts both ways - for JP and his critics).
More that power is understood in different ways depending on the theoretical and paradigmatic assumptions that someone brings to the table. There are cultural dimensions to power that can't be captured within a biological framework (for instance, why 'classed' power operates the way it does, or why any kind of non-biological construct - money, literature, law, etc - inflects power relations). That's not to say biology has *nothing* to do with it, not at all - it can certainly explain some power dynamics which a 'pure' interpretivist framework wouldn't see either. But claiming that biology (or any paradigm) offers some sort of total explanation for cultural practices - as Peterson often does - is naive. The point is more that the idea of these conflicting worldviews being 'right or wrong' is wrong - they're addressing completely different domains.
![เบิ้ล ปทุมราช - สาวสอง ( มีมี่ของอ้าย ) ft. ตาต้า,ต้องเต [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mqlMjnP08XI/mqdefault.jpg)
Seriously? Everything JP said is accurate. He stated that we don't know the rules - there are no "rules" just social protocols which are interpreted differently by individuals, particularly from different sexes, ages, classes, social standing, nationality, etc.
No, very few women are consciously wearing makeup in the workplace because they want sexual attention. But makeup is (by and large) a product of the natural biological urge to signal availability for "partnering", so actually, yes. Of course it doesn't warrant unwanted male response, but again, men usually understand the social protocol that the workplace is for work and not pursuing sexual partners, makeup or not...
The paradigm war is the distinction between positivism and analytic philosophy versus continental philosophy. I would disagree that Peterson is strictly a positivist given that he draws on the psychoanalytic perspectives of Freud and Jung. However, he is definitely a materialist/biological determinist researcher...although this may be shifting.
Out classed ???
He is not alt right. And he has changed multiple peoples life. The left Coles him right in the right calls him left he thinks for himself and he does not belong to a group he doesn’t think politically he thinks as a Scientist and a psychologist. If this is what you boil Jordan Peterson down to I’m telling you you do not know him.
With regards to Zizek and Jordan Petersons “discussion,” which I’d like to stress was simply a discussion should not be critiqued by you with such ignorance. These two gems weren’t arguing… they agreed with each other about Marxism and mentioned potential solutions, WHICH where attained from a set of different structures and approaches. You won’t know how ignorant you are until you genuinely allow yourself to accept your ignorance and give yourself the chance to learn something, rather than living up to ONLY one’s standards (Dogma). Take for example, Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty. One of the things said by J.P. was, “Well you wouldn’t have art”, with regards to Christianity. The bigger picture is what he’s referring towards. Yes, of course we know and so does J.P. that there are magnificent pieces of secular art. What does what he’s saying actually mean?
Jordan is literally just being philosophically and semantically truthful. Why don’t you show your face next time you try to gaslight and insult entire populations of people.
So gonna get our counselling trainee students to watch this and see the reaction! 👏🏾😉😬
Thanks guys, great video
So... does time really exist? :) love the VDO
NO NO NO NO you've gone far away Pat. I think you took the direction of your criticism on Jordan's thoughts to the personal side.
By the way, was that you on this TH-cam
th-cam.com/video/iq-JKy3t-Qc/w-d-xo.html
Also, I didn't see any relationship about the assumptions of philosophy epist, onto.... etc with what the video contents were about. Sorry for my honesty, but you should read more about the paradigms and philosophical assumptions to know how it fits into the research.
I'm very curious to hear you say that - in what way do you think my critique of Peterson was personal? (full disclosure: I do have issues with some of his political positions, obviously, but that's not what I'd call a 'personal' criticism). My point here - maybe badly articulated because wine - is more to establish a contrast between different epistemological approaches to social science (and Jordan Peterson is such a man of the moment who engages in a lot of criticism of what he calls 'cultural marxist postmodernism' or whatever, that he provides a really good entry point for that kind of conversation).
For example, I think he is generally wary of interpretivist approaches to social science (the sorts of things he inaccurately calls 'marxist') because they actively critique social structures and they're values-laden. This sits in contrast to a positivist approach which sort of excludes values as not relevant to understanding a phenomenon. That's the paradigm contrast we're discussing here (it's actually part two of a much larger conversation which goes into the assumptions of different paradigmatic positions).
Happy to hear your thoughts on the matter - agree or disagree, either is interesting and welcome! You can check out some of the literature that informed this series of chats in the video description: Guba & Lincoln's stuff is generally (at least for qual ed researchers) a pretty decent overview of different perspectives (unless you're wanting the history of paradigm lit, in which case there's Kuhn's famous work, and I think Bruno LaTour is worth a read for something a bit different).
And no, that's not me in the video you linked! For starters I'm not American, I wouldn't bother asking a question from the audience at an event, and I don't really know what the point of *challenging* Jordan Peterson would be (not that I really read that kid as doing that, he didn't really get to his question coz he was dancing around it so much). My point is more that there are multiple ways of learning about stuff - and I mean that in the empirical researchy sense as well - so I really don't get why people feel the need to try and shut down or attack researchers for operating in a different space. Sure, disagree about what causes phenomena, whether a particular theoretical framework is useful for understanding it, whether it is good or bad, etc etc. But shutting someone down just for asking those questions? That's dumb (and that cuts both ways - for JP and his critics).
So you guys are suggesting when talking about power that's something biological frameworks can't explain?
More that power is understood in different ways depending on the theoretical and paradigmatic assumptions that someone brings to the table. There are cultural dimensions to power that can't be captured within a biological framework (for instance, why 'classed' power operates the way it does, or why any kind of non-biological construct - money, literature, law, etc - inflects power relations). That's not to say biology has *nothing* to do with it, not at all - it can certainly explain some power dynamics which a 'pure' interpretivist framework wouldn't see either. But claiming that biology (or any paradigm) offers some sort of total explanation for cultural practices - as Peterson often does - is naive.
The point is more that the idea of these conflicting worldviews being 'right or wrong' is wrong - they're addressing completely different domains.