Jordan B. Peterson

Probably a good read for Elon Musk right now. https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-for-life/

Had the same thought. On this note, Peterson's reading list [1] is worth pursuing, however I'd dovetail it with less serious books for the sake of levity -- his reading list, like himself, can be pretty serious + severe. [1] https://jordanbpeterson.com/books/book-list/

As a creator of http://karmabot.chat – I can confirm, it is real ;) Philosophically, there is no justification for the existence of balance of good and evil. Humans tend to believe in such thing, that makes it somewhat real, but not in the material sense. AFAIK, there is generally a chaos: in life, in the universe. It can be carefully observed, rationalised and handled with great deal of care and toughness. It is hard but not impossible to bring more order in one's way of living. Karma rule is a by-product of such process. Possibly good read: https://jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-for-life/

He said the phrase "enforced monogomy" (in a positive context) and everyone lost their shit. > My motivated critics couldn’t contain their joyful glee this week at discovering my hypothetical support for a Handmaid’s Tale-type patriarchal social structure > “enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy, as opposed to genetic monogamy – evolutionarily-dictated monogamy, which does exist in some species (but does not exist in humans). This distinction has been present in anthropological and scientific literature for decades. Basically...traditional (voluntary) marriage. You know, the millenia-old religious/societal contact "to love, honor, cherish and protect him/her, forsaking all others and holding only unto him/her" Faced with the decision to interpret Peterson's phrase as dsytopian lobster-like social structure, or pedestrian traditional marriage, the author and others assumed the less plausible interpretation. [1] https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-m…

This is one of the big 5 personality traits (agreeableness). I found that these cover most everything and the combinations are the most interesting and useful. As I get older, I find that people closer to the middle across these traits are the ones I enjoy being around. This helps me know what areas I can work on to be a more pleasant human being :) https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/docs/230/2014/25Soldz.pdf

Despite what you may think of Jordan Peterson, he has a very useful guide for how to write better: https://jordanbpeterson.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Essay_Writing_G…

Gad Saad, professor of evolutionary psychology, recently wrote a book called “The Parasitic Mind”, that develops a similar set of ideas: https://bookshop.org/books/the-parasitic-mind-how-infectious-ideas-are… Saad also appeared on the Jordan Peterson podcast recently, explaining his framing and terminology around ideas infecting minds: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/podcast/gadsaad/

Agreed - Peterson has some important things to say, and much nonsense, but that specific conversation is absolutely hilarious, by virtue of her hyperbolic and rambling, but fun excursions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/podcast/episode-31/

> "Women like other things more" because fewer men are in those fields to tell them "this is a job for men." There is no overall gender-based bias towards or away from any intellectual interests. Do you have evidence for this? The evidence I've seen, say, comparing Scandinavian women to Eastern European women, indicates that there are sex-correlated trends in life choices, eg about career. https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/the-gender-scand…

"Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today" Read this: https://jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-for-life/

For posterity, here is Jordan Peterson responding to the numerous articles that misinterpretation his usage of the phrase "enforced monogamy": https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-m…

He responded to the NYT article. https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-m…

I think you would enjoy listening Jordan B. Peterson's comments on the links between evolution and the stories of the Bible. It is very interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos http://jordanbpeterson.com/2016/12/podcast/

We certainly have this kind of adaptation for tribal structures. The question is how this plays out on a larger scale. BTW Jordan Peterson's latest podcast goes deep on this issue. His podcast is here: http://jordanbpeterson.com/2016/12/podcast/

Work hierarchical, at different and clearly defined levels. Start with writing down the big picture (TOC, chapters, section headings), refine until happy. Then move to next level (subsection, paragraphs) and briefly summarise what points you want to make ("topic sentences"). Then move on to expanding the topic sentences to paragraphs of multiple sentences, without worrying too much about individual words and phrases. Move things around until the narrative is coherent, and you might have to go back to moving things around at the paragraph level. Once you're happy with how the content is organised in sentences, only then polish your writing at the individual word level. The important thing is to always be clear at what level you're working, ie, don't start working at paragraph level and fix typos at the same time. I also found Jordan Peterson's essay writing guide [1] useful, not just for academic writing. [1] https://jordanbpeterson.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Essay_Writing_G…

I have heard two stories told to explain this. One is, it used to be that acting and movie-making was considered a "low" thing to do, so a marginalized but white-looking minority got pushed in to doing it. Hollywood was low-status so long ago that there's no way the ethnic bias could still be around so I don't believe that theory. The other one is that Jews have a high IQ average, so you find them in important positions more than you would otherwise. I used to think that was a fringe internet blog theory, but apparently the mainstream pop psychologist Jordan Peterson professes it: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-que… Jewish people get more Nobel prizes, have higher SAT scores, and are overrepresented in so many things that the average IQ theory seems like the most reasonable explanation. This comes with the mandatory disclaimer that the variations between individual people are much larger than the differences between ethnic averages: making it useful for sociology on a mass scale but useless for understanding any individual person.

I think the problem with tptacek's explanation is that it does not address the larger context of how certain topics have become sacred in academia [5], and how breaking or criticising these sacred ideas leads to an outsized reaction. Do you think the reaction was focusing on merits and that it was not an outsized reaction due to someone violating something sacred? Lets dig more into evidence of suppression of biological research: How would you then explain the reactions to anyone stating the biological fact that human gender is overwhelmingly bimodal with almost everyone being male/female [1], suppression of research into intelligence [2], or the diversity pledges some candidates now have to write before becoming professors [3]. The grievance studies hoax proved how grievance studies is acting like ideological whitewashing of extreme political ideas that would be unacceptable otherwise [4]. These ideas are used to justify political actions in universities and in culture to suppress sacrilegious ideas [5], and it is a concept of sacred only a small very loud minority of progressives believe in and these comprise 8% of the population [6]. Personally I find the radical leftist explanation of these two incidences unconvincing: - it seems like the opposition to McKinnon’s paper was argued primarily from a moral angle due to his violation of some progressive sacred principles, and other explanation does not seem to explain the size of the response - The reaction to the…

Is your room clean? It's a somewhat serious, somewhat tongue-in-cheek question. But if you need to clean your room, maybe you should do that first. Instead of having grandiose visions of improving things at large scale, prove to yourself you can improve things at a local scale and keep them that way. If that sort of thinking is interesting, there's a whole book of it in https://jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-for-life/ Though I'll say I got out of the existential and nihilistic mindsets differently, I don't feel like I have to wrestle with meaningness like I used to, before I ever heard of the author, I've just read good-sounding things from people who have read that book or have otherwise gotten themselves invested in the author's doings. I suspect you've read this before but if not, point 5 might resonate with you: http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/Lisp/comp.lang.lisp/2006-05/msg000… If you fit the mold and can't change your mindset then you'll forever be unhappy unless you manage to get one of those "interesting" jobs.