Comments by "" (@psychcowboy1) on "John Anderson Media"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
Although I don't fault Hicks and Peterson for basically making a living out of attacking fictitious bogey men, I do have a problem with fancy academic terms that fluff up something simple into worthiness for academic debate, in this case post modernism. It's like Peterson continually referring to a tyrannical patriarchy; he can't just say male dominated? But anyway on to Hicks making a living out of fluffing up Post Modernism into an actual thing that threatens logic and western civilization. To simplify; he props up this evil and sinister force called post modernist or socialist that rejects happiness, prosperity, reason, evidence, peace, and freedom. Then he gets in the ring and knocks down his caricature to the glee of his gullible and conservative fans.
Here are some snips of the first review of his book that pops up:
"Unfortunately, Explaining Postmodernism is full of misreadings, suppositions, rhetorical hyperbole and even flat out factual errors. Moreover, these problems aren’t limited to Hicks’ interpretation of postmodern authors, .. It extends across much of the modern Western canon, ... For Hicks, virtually the entire post-Descartes philosophical canon is apparently committed to irrationalist collectivism...The book’s problems begin on the very first page, with Hicks’ list of seminal postmodern authors. … These problems persist throughout the book. Hicks completely misinterprets Lyotard’s quotation about Saddam Hussein in his 1997 book Postmodern Fables....Sadly, Hicks’ tendency to fudge philosophical traditions and history isn’t limited to postmodern authors. Hicks also badly misrepresents Medieval and Enlightenment thinkers who don’t ascribe to his own philosophical and political preferences. Hicks’ caricature of Medieval thinkers as “super naturalist, mystical, collectivist, and feudalistic” is extremely questionable."
Rhetorical hyperbole, errors, problems persist from the first page on, badly misrepresents, questionable caricature? I haven't read the book, but given Hicks on YouTube, the analysis seems believable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
A conclusion is warranted at this point. I have definitely got a handle on the Jordan Peterson phenomena, and as Stephen Hicks is to some extent cut from the same cloth, we can draw some connections.
1. I recognize the tough job both Peterson and Hicks have inherited. To maintain academic relevance of fields that deserve very little attention. Philosophy and psychology, and I will lump law and economics in with those. With a minimal amount of training I could walk into a courtroom and argue with most other lawyers, and likewise sit behind a desk and listen to someone's psychological problems. Very little of it moves past common sense. Hard science on the other hand cannot be understood with common sense; you can't common sense your way to understanding how cell membranes recognize and respond to hormones as one example. This concept is elucidated in the Sokal Hoax and more recently the Seven Secret Papers. Effectively, real scientists making fun of joke academia.
2. One thing that is recurrent and transparent in the ramblings of Peterson and Hicks is the theme of post modernism. Post modernism as defined by those guys is the denial of evidence, reason, the ability to prove anything, as well as the lack of gratitude and the rejection of free speech. Both Hicks and Peterson attribute this post modern rejection of reason and logic as something confined to the Left, liberals, or socialistic government policies. Basically, if you are on the Left or in favor of limiting greed in capitalism you are thus a post modernist -- someone with no belief in reason, truth, or the provability of anything. Hicks and Peterson have effectively struck gold. By appealing to a large and gullible conservative fan base, they can at the same time get massive amounts followers on Patreon and YouTube, and also gain some perceived relevance to their flimsy academic fields. In effect, libtards are post modernists and anyone who hates post modernism is smart. The fans of this mantra swoon at the hips with the perceived realization that post modernism is an actual thing.
The problem with this over simplified us verses them world view however is that it relies on this theory: The Left and socialism don't believe in logic, reason, and evidence. If you start examining the existence or absence of logic, reasoning, and evidence in the ramblings of Peterson and Hicks however, the obvious conclusion is that those guys are post modernists. When does Peterson provide evidence of anything? He laments that there are no models of animal industriousness, it is foolish to credit the women's movement with advances in women's rights, capitalism does not create inequity, who says we have over population, and dozens upon dozens of other theories that completely fly in the face of objective reality. Basically, it is those other guys who ignore evidence and logic; not us. It is quite a convenient rationalization until you spend more than 10 seconds pondering its actual credibility.
Again, given what they have to work with Peterson and Hicks do a reasonable job. How do you manufacture hours upon hours of lectures resting on content as banal as: pursuing the truth and responsibility are good things, and people have work life and a family life? I couldn't do it. Fortunately there are always masses of conservatives looking for the next flaming bush to worship; intellectual heroes that lend credence to the theory that conservatives are the smart ones. As long as Peterson and Hicks periodically label the Left as ignorant or socialism as denying reality, the loyal won't be bothered to notice the tons of other useless crap mixed in. I hate postmodern libtards, and now where is that link where I can buy some lottery winning holy water?
1
-
Apparently Hicks and Anderson are sort of hooked at the hip with Jordan Peterson; a little embarrassing considering what a joke Peterson is, but lets check these guys out. Hicks: 'We take for granted the prosperity and lifespans in the 21st century, that we can solve problems.' [So according to Hicks I take for granted my nice car, good medicine, flat screen TV, and the ability to solve problems? How does he know this exactly? Call me skeptical but some guy professing to know what others feel or think is ignoring the objective reality of the grasp of his own awareness. So far, on the lack of self awareness of objective reality, I rate Hicks as a post modernist. Let's see what else he has.]
'We don't do a good job of communicating in education what all of that depends on.' [What doesn't education communicate about Stephen? Technological advances? Maybe you should steer away from pointless 2 hour lectures on post modernism and do that yourself; take some of your own advice maybe?]
Stephen then astonishes us that 'the average person has a work life and a family life, they keep up on what the issues are...the far Left felt beaten up on, they got their act together and social media is part of that...they have a battle on their hands.' [So Mr. Anderson, do you get Hicks point here? People work and have families? Uh Ok. People try and keep up with politics and social media is a part of that? He sounds ambiguous and pointless, but if you see some kind of worthwhile take home message here, can you tell us what it is? Not as big of an idiot as Jordan Peterson, but approaching Peterson's pointless standard, unless I am missing something.]
Stephen talks about 'reason being important in 1700, but now we can't observe the world our concepts are arbitrary, reason is not capable, we don't act on the basis of reason, individuals can think and try ideas, but someone doesn't think that individuals can think and try ideas, competition of ideas is important, open mindedness will make me better off, that process is important, human beings are not individuals are not seeking truth, they are molded by a social context.'
[Let me cut to the chase here Mr. Anderson since Hicks seems to be having a tough time. Apparently at some point in time there were individuals who could reason and debate and seek the truth, but now there isn't? Do I have this mostly right John? Hicks claims that he is open to learning from others and even being humiliated. Sounds good to me. Stephen, Here is my tip. Don't make over simplified claims about ungrateful people who don't believe individuals can discuss the truth, solve problems, etc. Otherwise you look like a complete idiot. Prepare some notes next time with the singular goal of actually having a useful and substantiated point. I hope that helps.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Were there any Peterson wins? Here are a couple of Helen wins, starting at like 41:00.
1. Helen: It works in two different ways, it makes lobsters more aggressive and it makes humans less aggressive.'
Peterson interrupting: No that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive...I know my neurochemistry, if you want to go play neurochemistry, It makes a lobster more likely to fight again.'
[uh Whoops Jordan. She agreed with you that serotonin makes humans less aggressive, and she is wrong... for agreeing with you? Lobsters that want to fight are not displaying aggression? Fighting isn't aggression? The relevant paper is called Serotonin and Aggression Motivation in Crustaceans, concluding that serotonin makes lobsters adopt aggressive postures...SCORE: Helen 1, Jordan 0]
2."I chose lobsters, the reason I made that argument was to put paid to the absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchical structures are a secondary consequence of free market economies which is as preposterous a theory as you could have about anything.'
Helen: 'Lobsters say the thing that you ideologically want to talk about that your belief that there is a kind of Marxist ideology...'
Peterson interrupting: 'How do lobsters say that?'
[Uh what Jordan? You just explained how lobsters demonstrate that. Remember you chose lobsters to put rest to the absurd Marxist proposition, and now you are saying lobsters don't put to rest the absurd proposition? Remembering what you said 2 minutes ago can be super challenging I know.] SCORE: Helen 2, Jordan 0
3. Helen referring to equality of outcome: 'I don't think that is a widely held view.'
JP Interrupting as usual: 20% of social scientists identify as Marxist. Look it up in Haidt's work, I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistical.
[Heads up JP, in the survey you are referring to, 3% of college professors identify as Marxist, and you claim that universities are dominated by leftist ideology, thus 3% of a very Left leaning sample identify as Marxist... and you are disagreeing with Helen? Whoops. The study Prevalence of Marxism in Academia states that Marxism is 'A tiny minority faith', ie Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. SCORE: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
--Peterson at 19:00: 'That's for sure it's purely not, when you define it as tyrannical patriarchy implies one-dimensional...'
[Whoops Jordan, remember in the dave rubin john anderson interview when you said the West is an oppressive patriarchy but not purely that? Contradiction alert']
What if the patriarchy is composed of women is it still a patriarchy? [Helen corrects JP by stating that it would be a matriarchy, score for Helen.]
'We take a patriarchal structure like the medical profession and we fill it with women, is it that it is mostly men that makes it a patriarchy, if it is a structure that is composed of women then it is also a tyrannical patriarchy, if it is composed of women and it is a tyrannical patriarchy...
[Jordan pulls a Cathy Newman -- So You are Saying. Sorry Jordan, Helen, She just corrected you that composed or dominated primarily of women is a matriarchy. So after denying that we have a patriarchy numerous times in this interview you are now admitting that the medical field is a patriarchy?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner Were there any Peterson wins? Here are a couple of Helen wins, starting at like 41:00.
1. Helen: It works in two different ways, it makes lobsters more aggressive and it makes humans less aggressive.'
Peterson interrupting: No that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive...I know my neurochemistry, if you want to go play neurochemistry, It makes a lobster more likely to fight again.'
[uh Whoops Jordan. She agreed with you that serotonin makes humans less aggressive, and she is wrong... for agreeing with you? Lobsters that want to fight are not displaying aggression? Fighting isn't aggression? The relevant paper is called Serotonin and Aggression Motivation in Crustaceans, concluding that serotonin makes lobsters adopt aggressive postures...SCORE: Helen 1, Jordan 0]
2."I chose lobsters, the reason I made that argument was to put paid to the absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchical structures are a secondary consequence of free market economies which is as preposterous a theory as you could have about anything.'
Helen: 'Lobsters say the thing that you ideologically want to talk about that your belief that there is a kind of Marxist ideology...'
Peterson interrupting: 'How do lobsters say that?'
[Uh what Jordan? You just explained how lobsters demonstrate that. Remember you chose lobsters to put rest to the absurd Marxist proposition, and now you are saying lobsters don't put to rest the absurd proposition? Remembering what you said 2 minutes ago can be super challenging I know.] SCORE: Helen 2, Jordan 0
3. Helen referring to equality of outcome: 'I don't think that is a widely held view.'
JP Interrupting as usual: 20% of social scientists identify as Marxist. Look it up in Haidt's work, I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistical.
[Heads up JP, in the survey you are referring to, 3% of college professors identify as Marxist, and you claim that universities are dominated by leftist ideology, thus 3% of a very Left leaning sample identify as Marxist... and you are disagreeing with Helen? Whoops. The study Prevalence of Marxism in Academia states that Marxism is 'A tiny minority faith', ie Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. SCORE: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
--Peterson at 19:00: 'That's for sure it's purely not, when you define it as tyrannical patriarchy implies one-dimensional...'
[Whoops Jordan, remember in the dave rubin john anderson interview when you said the West is an oppressive patriarchy but not purely that? Contradiction alert']
What if the patriarchy is composed of women is it still a patriarchy? [Helen corrects JP by stating that it would be a matriarchy, score for Helen.]
'We take a patriarchal structure like the medical profession and we fill it with women, is it that it is mostly men that makes it a patriarchy, if it is a structure that is composed of women then it is also a tyrannical patriarchy, if it is composed of women and it is a tyrannical patriarchy...
[Jordan pulls a Cathy Newman -- So You are Saying. Sorry Jordan, Helen, She just corrected you that composed or dominated primarily of women is a matriarchy. So after denying that we have a patriarchy numerous times in this interview you are now admitting that the medical field is a patriarchy?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnrobie9694 Here is one review of Hicks, his performance in this video doesn't change my mind, but if you think he was smart, maybe you can point to it:
"Unfortunately, Explaining Postmodernism is full of misreadings, suppositions, rhetorical hyperbole and even flat out factual errors. Moreover, these problems aren’t limited to Hicks’ interpretation of postmodern authors, .. It extends across much of the modern Western canon, ... For Hicks, virtually the entire post-Descartes philosophical canon is apparently committed to irrationalist collectivism...The book’s problems begin on the very first page, with Hicks’ list of seminal postmodern authors. … These problems persist throughout the book. Hicks completely misinterprets Lyotard’s quotation about Saddam Hussein in his 1997 book Postmodern Fables....Sadly, Hicks’ tendency to fudge philosophical traditions and history isn’t limited to postmodern authors. Hicks also badly misrepresents Medieval and Enlightenment thinkers who don’t ascribe to his own philosophical and political preferences. Hicks’ caricature of Medieval thinkers as “super naturalist, mystical, collectivist, and feudalistic” is extremely questionable."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1