- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,232
- 246,620
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Jordan Peterson
- Thread starter bonfire
- Start date
I don't have the time to go on details on this because i have to travel right now but what you write has a point!
D
Deleted member 16771
@slant
Do you believe in 'facts' in any capacity? I'm trying to figure out if there is any possible way to engage you about this.
What I was puzzled about is not the question of subjectivity/objectivity - that's a pretty standard discussion we could have without the condescending little lecture there, lol - what I'm questioning is this tendency that people are showing to deliver their 'truth' or 'opinion' in public fora, and then retreat at any sign of resistance.
It's this kind of behaviour that is producing the echo-chambers and polarisation that we are struggling with today. The conviction some people have that their opinions are absolutely sovereign and that they have a right to express them but no obligation to defend them (in fact become defensive or offended if it's even suggested that they do that).
There's some kind of civic sense that's missing in this approach, but nonetheless would be hard to insist upon without infringing freedom of speech somehow.
Perhaps people would feel better if political statements were subject to the same kind of rules of discourse as science. Perhaps they would feel worse. I don't know.
Brb, I'm just going to use my perspective to modify the physical laws of nature to send you a hug through the interwebs. Careful everyone! If you feel a little strange, that's just me tweaking electromagnetism with my point of view.
Do you believe in 'facts' in any capacity? I'm trying to figure out if there is any possible way to engage you about this.
What I was puzzled about is not the question of subjectivity/objectivity - that's a pretty standard discussion we could have without the condescending little lecture there, lol - what I'm questioning is this tendency that people are showing to deliver their 'truth' or 'opinion' in public fora, and then retreat at any sign of resistance.
It's this kind of behaviour that is producing the echo-chambers and polarisation that we are struggling with today. The conviction some people have that their opinions are absolutely sovereign and that they have a right to express them but no obligation to defend them (in fact become defensive or offended if it's even suggested that they do that).
There's some kind of civic sense that's missing in this approach, but nonetheless would be hard to insist upon without infringing freedom of speech somehow.
Perhaps people would feel better if political statements were subject to the same kind of rules of discourse as science. Perhaps they would feel worse. I don't know.
Brb, I'm just going to use my perspective to modify the physical laws of nature to send you a hug through the interwebs. Careful everyone! If you feel a little strange, that's just me tweaking electromagnetism with my point of view.
Because it's a waste of time. People have information and the ability to research things themselves. If I share my perspective and someone disagrees, then that's fine. I'm not a missionary out to recruit people for my cause. If someone is interested in learning about my perspective they can ask me for resources I used to learn about it or do a simple Google search to research it themselves. I don't view it as retreating. I view it as
"This is my perspective"
"Well I disagree!"
"Ok cool"
Why should I spend my precious time and energy trying to convince someone of something that, if they were genuinely interested in, they could look into it themselves. I think people just like to pick fights. There's a difference between a discussion and debate. I'll discuss my ideas but I'm not going to debate them. I don't have to prove their validity to others; as long as they work for me, they're fine. It's just like if someone were to dislike the way I dress or present myself...too bad. That's my choice. I'm not obligated to justify myself. That's your job.
D
Deleted member 16771
Slant do you ever actually 'enjoy' discussing anything with anyone?
Do you ever feel like you learn anything from it, or derive any pleasure from it? Even if you disagree?
Or is the frustration of having people disagree with you too much to bear? I.e. it immediately becomes a waste of time to you?
All the time. Usually things that I haven't researched/ don't know a lot about. It's interesting to get someone else's perspective on the topic and maybe realize a misconception I had about something.
The ones I don't enjoy are usually the ones where I've done a lot of research on the topic and have decided what my opinion is and the person I'm talking to is on the opposite perspective. At that l point I feel it is a waste of time and frustrating. I'll give you an example
I personally don't consume sugar, and there is a lot of scientific evidence saying that specifically cane sugar has no nutritional value. Additionally I don't think that eating grains or starchy foods is good for most people, and I'll concede that some people have genetics that can process it better, but I believe that in general it's best to avoid if you have a genetic makeup that isn't adequate at processing it.
My grandmother believes the opposite; that fat is bad and that sugar and starch is good for you and that you should avoid fat at all costs. She has high cholesterol, which evidence suggests is actually caused by high sugar consumption (she is a sugar addict and eats frosting off cake instead of eating the cake), but she continues to avoid eating meat and fat and her cholesterol levels remain high much to her confusion.
Whenever we get together she tries to bring this up and talk about my eating habits and how scientists don't agree about sugar, etc. It's annoying. She knows I disagree. I don't see what the point is in discussing it at all.
Guess I'll toss my perspective on this into the ring...
I find it easier to learn through argument than through reading, as I have some extra outside stimulation from the other person, the desire to reply, etc. And while my beliefs have hardened a bit (though also softened considerably more in places) as I've gotten older, I do find there are times I can be convinced by arguments about certain things. It's not necessarily just an attempt to convince someone else. Hell even if neither of us are convinced we maybe get the opportunity to understand our own positions better.
I don't really see why people expect me to do their convincing for them though. It's not like I'm not putting anything in myself--I'm also "selling" my positions to the other person, so it's already equivalent in that sense. The person that wants me to research their position (Without providing a clear map, beyond a certain point, etc.) basically wants me to research theirs and my own, and that seems like double duty. Of course, it's fair to say they aren't really requiring me to but like...if someone is sharing their opinion, I would assume they want people to listen to that opinion. It seems like they are trying to convince people, even if they're not doing it through argument.
Usually the types of things I tend to discuss are not things that directly impact my personal life, thus I can't really say whether they work for me or not.
I find it easier to learn through argument than through reading, as I have some extra outside stimulation from the other person, the desire to reply, etc. And while my beliefs have hardened a bit (though also softened considerably more in places) as I've gotten older, I do find there are times I can be convinced by arguments about certain things. It's not necessarily just an attempt to convince someone else. Hell even if neither of us are convinced we maybe get the opportunity to understand our own positions better.
I don't really see why people expect me to do their convincing for them though. It's not like I'm not putting anything in myself--I'm also "selling" my positions to the other person, so it's already equivalent in that sense. The person that wants me to research their position (Without providing a clear map, beyond a certain point, etc.) basically wants me to research theirs and my own, and that seems like double duty. Of course, it's fair to say they aren't really requiring me to but like...if someone is sharing their opinion, I would assume they want people to listen to that opinion. It seems like they are trying to convince people, even if they're not doing it through argument.
Usually the types of things I tend to discuss are not things that directly impact my personal life, thus I can't really say whether they work for me or not.
Hmm.
When I share my opinion I'm sharing who I am, knowledge about me, what view I hold at a particular time. It has nothing to do with me wanting to convince the other person of an opinion, in fact, if I know the person believes the opposite perspective I will hold my tongue and not bring it up. If they bring it up I will either give a response like,
"Well that's an interesting perspective you have"
Or is if it's an opinion that I really feel I need to clarify my position on,
"Let's agree to disagree."
For me my opinions and beliefs are deeply personal and I find it insulting to think you have the right to tell other people what they ought to believe. That's something that requires soul searching and experiences to come to a conclusion. If you want to share what you think, fine. But our thoughts are the only thing we have 100% control over and I don't like the idea of someone thinking they have the right to determine that for me. Give someone the information and let them decide for themselves. If you don't desire to learn about the opposite perspective that's your choice. Nobody is obligated to educate you. There are lectures and podcasts on topics, and I'm sure if you researched a topic and went back to your friend with questions they would try their best to answer it. In fact this is the way college courses work and you might even be able to pay money to get these types of discussions. But I think it's a bit entitled to think that other people are obligated to educate and convince you of their p
opinion.Opinions are like assholes; we all have them. If I spent the time trying to convince everyone I meet of every opinion I have, I wouldn't have time to do anything else! At a certain point you have to take ownership of your own education.
D
Deleted member 16771
I'm not being facetious or anything, but maybe this is a perfect example of inferior Te (and dominant Fi).
Yeah. People are different and think differently. Excellent point and exactly what I'm trying to say. I like to tolerate those differences as opposed to thinking I can or should change others
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,232
- 246,620
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Confucius' teachings are more of a way to organise society in hierarchies than a way to live your own life.
Personally I think @slant should write a book on 13 lessons for life.
Personally I think @slant should write a book on 13 lessons for life.
Typing JP is quite hard. Since he's laser focused on humanities (morality, psychology, faith etc.) and relies on patterns for explaining the world, I'm quite sure of NF part. The rest is tricky, further obscured by his medical condition (he's been on various drugs for depression and anxiety). Also he seems like a person who has managed to integrate his shadow and can give out unusual vibes.
Jordan is always very agitated about being truthful and authentic - this seems to be his driving force, so I would bet on Fi dominant. He also enjoys a good fight for the sake of ideals. Fe users try to avoid conflict unless it's to protect someone else. Then building one's argument about morality on lobsters is just so indicative of Ne thinking. He skips so many steps in the middle and leaves ST folks dumbfounded with "but.. but lobsters don't even have a central nervous system". So my best guess is INFP with strongly developed shadow Fe and Ni functions.
I am also surprised why people are so obsessed about finding faults and dissonance in his words. We all are full of conflicting ideas and half baked rationalizations. Expecting perfect coherence from a human being is just not realistic. For example, sir Isaac Newton was able to single-handedly create physics and at the same time was a firm believer in alchemy. JP being wrong or inconsistent in one field, does not write off his other spot-on ideas.
Jordan is always very agitated about being truthful and authentic - this seems to be his driving force, so I would bet on Fi dominant. He also enjoys a good fight for the sake of ideals. Fe users try to avoid conflict unless it's to protect someone else. Then building one's argument about morality on lobsters is just so indicative of Ne thinking. He skips so many steps in the middle and leaves ST folks dumbfounded with "but.. but lobsters don't even have a central nervous system". So my best guess is INFP with strongly developed shadow Fe and Ni functions.
I am also surprised why people are so obsessed about finding faults and dissonance in his words. We all are full of conflicting ideas and half baked rationalizations. Expecting perfect coherence from a human being is just not realistic. For example, sir Isaac Newton was able to single-handedly create physics and at the same time was a firm believer in alchemy. JP being wrong or inconsistent in one field, does not write off his other spot-on ideas.
Last edited:
Yeah I actually don't really vibe with Confucianism from what I know of it.