—“Peterson and benzos”–
He didn’t take enough long enough. Some people are at high risk of withdrawal side effects. And the more personal crisis at the time combined with that withdrawal the worse it is. So it’s not the benzos per se but the consequences of withdrawal given…
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-22 22:44:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815518252233113888
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815516357544321243
Lets try to keep politics out of personal matters.
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-22 22:42:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815517772216205741
Reply addressees: @Danimals1488
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815517224385339850
COMPASSION FOR PETERSON
Just to demonstrate a bit of compassion, when I came down with undiagnosed cancer it had a terrible effect on me and I was given the equivalent little benzo pills Peterson was – they effectively anti-pain pills, even if it’s psychological pain.
I went off the cold turkey when I realized what they were doing to me and it was … extremely unpleasant, same symptoms, and all but unbearable. Though I would assume only twenty percent of what Peterson felt. And I have an unhealthy insensitivity to pain in the first place.
So, I have sympathy. But I also recognize while I have an extreme male brain, he doesn’t. He’s actually on the feminine side of the cognitive spectrum. So I suspect that not only the experience but the consequence has been hard on him.
And he’s going off the rails of rationality – and I don’t really know why he’s incognizant of doing so especially when surrounded by family and friends. I don’t know whether it’s the result of changes due to trauma. Of if the trauma merely expressed his inner sensibilities all along.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @Sturzen5
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-22 22:42:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815517681308598272
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815513592680055071
–“What’s the criticism, specifically? Stop being a Jungian?”–
The criticism is that he’s rude, and ending his legitimacy as a public intellectual despite his presence of a populist.
Peterson is capable of the empirical an very good at it. His penchant for the narrative: jungian, literary, mythological, and theological – is useful for attempting to provide historical legitimacy to the unsophisticated – it’s all they unsophisticated have to work with.
But in ‘adult conversation’ it would behoove him to first, remain within the domain of the empirical – otherwise it’s using private language and rude, and to stop interrupting those using the empirical, because it’s rude. And both taunt your opposite into either not responding, responding dismissively, and it baits them into ‘stooping’ to a level unsuitable for intellectual honesty in adult discourse, which is not only rude but insulting.
Interviews on present matters of import are not a forum for fictionalism (look it up) they are a forum for empiricism.
That is called ‘exchange’.
Conversely, when speaking to an auditorium of people of different abilities the utility of fictionalism is helpful in reaching a broader audience with meaning, before reducing that meaning to it’s empirical (scientific) foundations.
That is called ‘education’.
There is a difference.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @ccllaazz @AhmedAlmahdie
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-22 22:35:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815515924180672512
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815488409798074653
–“[Using Big Words?] Is this what you’re saying?”–
As someone who is daily accused of using “big words”, “word salad”, and “incomprehensibility”, that would hardly be the case.
What I’m saying is that in the spectrum of precision of means of communication, argument, and persuasion, adults who are intellectually honest favor those paradigms that limit loading, framing, obscuring and fictionalism as means of suggestion deceit or fraud. In other words The theological (Abrahamic), the literary (Plato) vs the Empirical (Aristotle).
Because the capacity for deception increases with the decrease in precision and the increase of the capacity to appeal to intuition instead of reason.
Repeating from a post a few minutes ago:
|Scale of Precision|: Embodiment <> (Narrative: Anthropomorphism <> Mythology <> Literature )<>( Systematizing: Theology <> Philosophy <> History )<> (Measuring: Empiricism <> Science <> Operationalism (causality)).
In that sequence “< Easier to vs Harder to >” lie, deceive, suggest, conflate, load, frame, obscure, and fictionalize.
It is conversely easier to communicate to those with less knowledge and ability as we move downward on the scale.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @ccllaazz
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-22 22:25:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815513439650865152
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815488774161526896
–“How do you determine when a person has passed the threshold.”–
TLDR; “evidence of demonstrated behavior in linguistic expression in uncontrived circumstances.”
I work in a field that is somewhat difficult to understand if you’re unfamiliar with it, but at the foundations of it, the simple version is that the language one uses, especially in expression of demonstrated preference, in ordinary circumstances, provides insight into the working of one’s mind and brain, if one understands a few concepts that are uncommonly understood: sex differences in cognition, the spectrum of explanation (descriptive grammars), and the spectrum of means of lying (deceptive grammars). In order to solve the problem of testimonial truth (truth proper), I had to ‘science’ language and especially lying, which led to sex differences in cognition – and all differences originate in sex differences.
So in economics we explain the difference between “imagined, reported, and demonstrated behavior”. Demonstrated behavior is empirical, everything else is not, and this is why most social science is nonsense other than behavioral economics.
So if we look at human behavior on the terms I’ve described above and we look at the behavior demonstrated by speech, with a rather trivial number of words we can tell a great deal about you (facebook can profile you within about one hundred likes for example), and if we have as little as a few thousand words, we can determine almost everything about your thought processes, your biases, values, knowledge, class, age, and sex that is relevant in relation to others.
With more experience we can, as any psychologist or psychiatrist can, explain your behavior by reducing it to the primary causes of the variation of your behavior from some standard or other. (And we can probably do better than they can.). They are worried about how to fix you. We are only concerned in explaining you.
So there is an intersection here between linguistics (“Grammars”), computational linguistics (usage), behavioral econ, neuroscience, and genetics that provides us this understanding.
Reply addressees: @HakeemDemi
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-22 22:16:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815511336442552320
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815506414858571844
RE: Peterson’s Ongoing Decline
1) –“[His distractions are] esoteric but not irrelevant”–
It’s worse than irrelevant. I assume your interpretation is due to not having experience in discussions with public intellectuals. But bringing up analogies that force the discussion partner to ignore as unworthy of adult conversation is extremely rude, because it’s asking others to descend into equally childish analogy that opens the field to inflation conflation suggestion deception and nonsense thus discrediting them. In other words, it’s baiting the opponent into hazard.
So watch debates, and observe how others respond to Peterson’s ‘eccentricity’ (childishness) by not responding and you’ll understand. They always try to restore the framework of discourse to adult conversation. They ignore that he’s rude and childish.
At present he’s riding entirely on his political activism and not on anything meaningful he contributes to these conversations. In other words people only talk to him for publicity purposes, not for serious discourse.
The opportunity for suggestion and deception increases with every decine from empiricism, and decreases with every increase from empiricism.
SCALE: Embodiment <> (Narrative: Anthropomorphism <> Mythology <> Literature )<>( Systematizing: Theology <> Philosophy <> History )<> (Measuring: Empiricism <> Science <> Operationalism (causality)).
In that sequence “< Easier to vs Harder to >” lie, deceive, suggest, conflate, load, frame, and obscure. It is conversely easier to communicate to those with less knowledge and ability as we move downward on the scale.
2) –“decline into his own trauma”–
People who experience trauma sedate their capacity for stress from activation by auto-association by reframing everything into some safe narrative, limiting their need for understanding the framework of others, and decreasing the need for new learning and adaptation. Some others will attempt to push others into their frame for coercive purposes. Peterson’s experience with trauma as well as his exit from the university and his subsequent greater association with those with religious proclivities, has tilted his cognitive framework out of that of someone who merely uses the literary and experiential as a means of explaining the cognition of others to adopting it as his own means of cognition, communication, and argument – in part because of the positive feedback from crowds despite the negative feedback from intellectuals.
Thanks
CD
Reply addressees: @ccllaazz
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-22 22:01:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815507587950948352
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815485910806675712
It follows the general rule that “all mythology, theology, and philosophy is moral fantasy literature” and that like religious, marxist, star wars, or lord of the rings fans, he’s living in that dream world more so than the real one, because at least the dream world makes sense…
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-22 20:30:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815484658748125543
Reply addressees: @superkanga
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815479629311775022
I’m sure this live event will be on peterson’s stream.
Why does peterson need to drag every rational adult conversation into some reference to literature, mythology, or philosophy, when he’s talking to someone like musk who is speaking in adult language about practical matters, and forcing Musk to “humor” Peterson’s distractions. In other words, he may not realize it but he’s making all conversations about himself and his decline into his own trauma instead of addressing the issue at hand. Over and over again. It’s embarassing.
Reply addressees: @ccllaazz
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-22 20:25:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815483358421422080
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815479571816525972
Peterson is embarrassing himself in a live interview with Musk. 🙁
Peterson has gone over to the spiritual and literary side so far that he has lost his previous ability to use the spiritual and literary for the purpose of therapy in material reality, and become yet another…
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-22 19:44:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815472973274595771