I just paid a burglar $250 to get back into my apartment. AHHHHH
I read the new Jordan Peterson book. Didn't like it. Despite finding validity in the research around uneven distribution and liking some of his more level headed ideas about differences in the sex I feel the idea that we can't (or worse, shouldn't) rework the social constructs and values we'd like to adhere to is a valid idea. Sure, we need to have values underneath our social structures and but it's a far leap to say we can't rewrite them without destroying stable society. He's only really valid when he can be specific (like law, and freedom of speech).
With this mindset gay marriage technically degraded the category of marriage. Except it didn't. Isolating the category of marriage to just straight marriage isn't that important. Now we have marriage, and under it sits neatly the personal identity of the individuals involved.
The self-help stuff he does isn't my flavour.
Originally Posted by rezo
I just paid a burglar $250 to get back into my apartment. AHHHHH
Not to say I told you so, but.....like i said. his original path of research was interesting but he pivoted to some sort of weird incel self-help thing. I have no idea what the book says and I don't plan to find out, but motivational talks about how to live your best life is oprah quality drivel.
Not explicitly. There was one lecture I sat in awhile ago where he said you have to acknowledge gay marriage may have changed the category of marriage. I do. It did. But for the better. Gay relationships are be fulfilling too (and non-gay fraternal or sororal relationships). But to him I think he sees it as a complication to a system (marriage) that is the ideal nurturing relationship. In my estimation all it did was redefine the scope and inclusion of a happy relationship. But he does believe in personal growth, he thinks beliefs and values found in ancient texts provide a framework on how you can be your best. And understand Being itself.
There are many value systems including atheist morality that can guide people. Maybe I’m finding no comfort in his ideas because my life wasn’t in tatters to begin with. I’ve always cultivated healthy relationships with others. The stuff I enjoy about him is mostly based on big 5 personality work. The “agreeable people don’t get paid as much as they should” stuff seems to even have predictive capabilities. I had two mentee’s last year and coaching them to feel confident asking for what they want contributed to an increase in salary and comfort.
But this book? None of that. The second rule is all about Christ and persevering through personal hell. I was bored.
Last edited by Drewbacca; 15 Feb 2018 at 09:20 PM.
Originally Posted by rezo
Social degregation is a pointless concern. There are enough people on this earth that we can suffer a bit of it with little impact. The world population can half before anyone should worry.
Social degredation has nothing to do with population. The shittiest people have no problem shitting out kids.
There are bad ideas. Trudeau in Canada publicly shitting on a fair trial in the news (aboriginal kid was shot, judge ruled case out due to situational evidence). That’s bad. It presents the executive house above the judicial, which is a degradation of a check on power. It’s as bad as when Trump did it. People think it’s fine because it’s wearing a cloak of equality. The way to protest a trial verdict is simple: appeal.
Stuff like that is legit. Stuff like preserving marriage? People will choose. They should be able to negotiate that with society.
Originally Posted by rezo
Also the writing was clunky in the book. The one neat thing he did in his book was cite everything. The back has a citation list pages long.
I’ve started reading Zen and the art of motor cycle repair. Way better.
Last edited by Drewbacca; 15 Feb 2018 at 09:33 PM.
Originally Posted by rezo
Bookmarks