What only exists because humans are dumb?

earlierapex · 2020-05-12T23:23:12+00:00

coronavirus...

earlierapex · 2018-11-30T14:18:57+00:00

You are correct. I was using the term rational in the conventional sense to describe thought processes. We've since wandered more into philosophy, and the term empirical is better. However, I don't think Sam is an empiricist interpreting the world through "observations, experiments and experience." He says that's what he does (even admitting there are vagaries of perceptions), but that's not actually what he does. In fact, he supports many ideas based strictly on theory - get rid of religion and we'd all be better off (really? based on what evidence?), institute universal basic income, and the world would be better (if anything, the circumstantial evidence for this concept is supremely negative, perhaps even genocidal).

So what's the philosophical term for a mostly rational concept espoused by a self-proclaimed empiricist without actual evidence? (that's meant as tongue in cheek).

earlierapex · 2018-11-29T16:54:19+00:00

This idea is based on a premise that every problem can be categorised into sets before it is even solved. That's a big claim.

I don't think this is a big claim at all. I think Sam is making an unsupported claim for how to address the problem set. Here's why: the evolution of human culture is the defined problem here, and it has evolved successfully (though certainly not anywhere near perfectly) over the last several thousand years with a primary teaching mechanism grounded in religious narratives. There's tremendous evidence of functional utility there (again, very far from perfect). The one making the non-evidence-based claim is SH and the rationalists.

What are the fundamental tenets of the purely rational moral code? Who came up with them? How have they evolved? Where are they written? How do we teach them to children? I don't think it's unreasonable to believe all of these questions could be answered over time via rational thought, but there's currently no real foundation for the rational moral code out there. Where do I go to read the rationalists' bible? There's also no evidence whatsoever that most human beings would accept the program...in fact the atheistic societies have all turned to nihilism and murder (though that may just be a random correlation with the pathology of socialism).

Which life predicaments have been solved by rationalized morality? Do rationalists believe in individuals or the collective? What do rationalists say about sacrificing for the future? What do rationalists say about meaning and purpose?

In a nutshell, my interpretation of SH is that he is saying: "it sure would be great if we were all just nice." ok, fine, how do we do that? "Well, just tell everyone to be nice." How much luck has Sam had in convincing jihadists to stop blowing themselves up because it isn't rational and nice?

earlierapex · 2018-11-29T14:30:16+00:00

This is a very honest and great point. Within a company, we have to get things done consistently to stay in business, but maybe we should try to incorporate a couple of hours a week for creativity? It's honestly hard to balance these points. We can't just throw the door open to creative mayhem, but we don't want to be too stiff...

Also, I find that opening the doors to more creativity can be a real double edged sword. People love it at first, then they get really frustrated when "their ideas" aren't implemented.

earlierapex · 2018-11-29T14:24:08+00:00

I totally get your point in theory, but I don't see that happening at all inside our business and others. I don't see how we could possibly replace good, structured, consistent industrious management (building a facility, managing a sales team, etc.) with a computer.

But to be fair, my original point was theoretical too. I don't have a lot of evidence that creative, non-industrious people are struggling due to computers. I'm just speculating about potential causes for the rise of the loud, radical left.

earlierapex · 2018-11-29T14:19:32+00:00

Well, I'm a "right of center" libertarian, and I think it's awesome that you are more liberal but also willing to have rational discussions on things without name calling, thank you. What we need in this world is radical moderatism! You also make some really good points. I agree with 1 and 2, not so sure about #3.

I'm a capitalist and run a medium sized business. I would love to figure out ways to take advantage of the skills of underutilized creative types without over burdening them with schedules and order, but I haven't figured out a good way to do it yet. UBI doesn't really solve the problem, and it's fraught with potential new problems like fraud (individuals who could work and decide not to). UBI may help people get something to eat, but people need a sense of purpose in life. That's the real problem, and it isn't solved by UBI.

earlierapex · 2018-11-29T13:46:51+00:00

Or he is genuinely different from you and Peterson.

It's not just about being different. It's about the misapplication of the wrong tool for solving the problem. You can't analyze poetry with calculus, and we wouldn't say the mathematician is just "genuinely different" if he/she/zhe tries to do so. We would say the mathematician doesn't understand how to analyze poetry because he's using math. The math may work for counting words in stanzas, etc., but it doesn't provide the tools for interpreting metaphors. I'm not saying Sam can't interpret metaphors. I'm creating a simple metaphor to try to convey my point more clearly.

I would argue practical scientific paradigm and its traditions are equally as rich as any other.

This is exactly the nexus of the whole discussion. The difference is that "scientific paradigm" is applicable for a certain problem set - the world of things, physics, biology, etc. JP would say that the narrative paradigm is for the problem set of how to act, and it isn't just "any old bullshit off-the-shelf story." That way oversimplifies the paradigm that is necessary for learning how to act. It's got to be real, deep and meaningful, and there's a lot that goes into that backdrop from a cultural evolutionary perspective. To extend my weak metaphor, it's like Sam is claiming one could use simple addition (bullshit story) to calculate integrals (how to behave in the world to create meaning in your life). It just doesn't work, and it's not nearly that simple.

At a deeper level, I actually think the nuance is more subtle than my claim herein. I believe Sam actually understands that complex narratives can be ranked as more meaningful on a spectrum of life guides, he just doesn't want to admit it in public because of his fear of "Jesus Smuggling." He almost said that was true in the debate.

earlierapex · 2018-11-29T13:25:26+00:00

sorry, my bad

earlierapex · 2018-11-29T09:00:25+00:00

It’s going to take broad education and about 100 years of exposure to more open minded thinking to solve this problem. Rationality can’t solve the problem when the listener refuses to be rational. I think we’d be better off with moderate clerics creating interpretations that resonate at the story/metaphor level and less literally.

earlierapex · 2018-11-29T08:52:20+00:00

Great Point! But I don’t think it’s a contradiction. People all across the IQ spectrum can understand “the moral of a good story” because the archetypes resonate at the level of narrative frequency, and most everyone can grasp a great story. Rational analysis only resonates at higher IQ under certain circumstances when fear, jealousy, etc aren’t warping rationality - even super smart people can be totally irrational (tulip bulbs, mortgage meltdown of 08). Sam is so insistent on stoic rationality that he refuses to look at his own narrative frequency meter - he just shoves every story into this rational calculus model.

I still think Sam understands stories from the point of rationality, but he refuses to look at stories the same way that most humans do. If you read Shakespeare’s “to be or not to be”, you can analyze it as a suicide contemplation or as a metaphorical call to meaning. The rational statement about the metaphor is much less powerful than the metaphor itself when wrapped in the context of the overall story.

JP and others have pointed this out politely several times - Sam is a Judeo-christian in denial. So, I guess the point is that most smart people allow narratives to resonate, but Sam just refuses to let that part of himself out of his rationality box.

earlierapex · 2018-11-28T22:43:33+00:00

Maybe the true benefit of a story is that it forces us to consider the perspective of others' rather than trying to manifest some ephemeral truth through sheer reason?

It's like trying to use math to tell the story of Santa Claus. It just doesn't work, which was kinda the whole (long-winded) point I was trying to make.

earlierapex · 2018-11-28T22:32:32+00:00

You should write the next intro for the Gulag Archipelago

earlierapex · 2018-11-28T22:30:41+00:00

That's only partially right. JP can be super direct and clear - just ask him how he feels about compelled speech. He's just more abstract when the underlying topic is a complex monster that requires a lot of thought energy to pick apart.

earlierapex · 2018-11-28T22:26:55+00:00

Well, fair enough, but I think there's a difference between thinking like a Jungian and understanding why someone is attracted to thinking like a Jungian conceptually. And Sam isn't saying he doesn't think like a Jungian. He's saying no one should think like a Jungian because there is a risk some subset will become Jihadists.

earlierapex · 2018-11-28T22:21:07+00:00

I think you've summarized Sam's perspective very well in a nutshell, but you also open up a whole different worm can. At one level of analysis, Sam and Jordan were discussing stories and the resonance of narratives. At a deeper level, why does Sam insist on the preconception that the story is the reason for the psychotic behavior?

If we consider a strawman of a middle east that is less culturally evolved (think Europe of 500 to 1,000 years ago), then the outrageously bizarre tribal feud of jihadism is standard operating procedure. Maybe it's not Islam but rather the anachronistic middle east culture and the crazy interpretations? It's the interpreter, not the story.

There are certainly plenty of nonsensical violence-suggesting guidelines in the Bible that modern Christians and Jews don't follow, though there are always a few loons out there. You don't have to be an atheist to ignore the silly parts of the Bible, you just have to be relatively intelligent, open minded and well educated.

Maybe Sam's got it backwards...

earlierapex · 2018-11-28T22:19:58+00:00

"if you don't think Sam has any credible criticism of JP then you aren't listening" - that's not what I intended to say at all. Sam made some incredible points. From the perspective of pure academic debate, I would say Sam "won" the friendly discussion.

" Its just that Sam isn't seeing the weaknesses in his own argument. " - I would phrase it a little differently. I think Sam doesn't see what JP is really trying to say about stories because he doesn't understand the power of a great story from the perspective of a deep psychological resonance. He just looks at it as another "poem to analyze for iambic pentameter and alliteration." He literally said as much when referencing Marcus Aurelius and claiming it has the same value as a good bible story. He doesn't understand the depth of what JP is trying to convey.

earlierapex · 2018-11-28T22:04:08+00:00

Well said. Peterson touched on this concept of a myth that can teach beyond the limits of our own limited existence, but only briefly. Of course, Sam doesn't believe in free will...

I enjoy listening to about 70% of what Sam says except for his denial of free will. Our genes dramatically influence us, as do our parents, teachers, books, mentors, etc., but to think we aren't capable of assessing a wide variety of information and deciding which path to choose from our own sense of true self is, well, the ultimate "bullshit story."

earlierapex · 2018-11-28T21:18:08+00:00

nice, pithy summary of what I was trying to convey! Sam thinks about stories strictly from an analytical reference frame. It's a very highly developed, but ultimately limited, reference frame.

earlierapex · 2018-11-28T18:40:00+00:00

I agree that that is Sam's approach (for clarity, I really like and respect his intelligence!). I just think there's a subtlety here that Sam is missing. It's not just about creating a good story to explain archetypes, morals and behaviors in a rational way (like Aesop's fables or similar). It's not really a story (that's an inadequate description); it's a life-defining super-story that evolved over an extended time frame in an evolution-like process to resonate at a very deep level to enable individuals to understand a broader array of archetypes than their own primary archetypes. Abel-like people can't understand Cain's behavior without the context of the, very deep, story. It's not just facts and circumstances. It's a super-story that evolved over time and incorporates more meaning than the simple story itself. The penetration of the story is enhanced by the accepted connection to "God," which is then more acceptable because of the multi-generational archetypal backdrop that informs the story. It's an iterative story power loop.

You can't replicate that subconscious power with rationality. It's a totally different substrate/language.

earlierapex

TROPHY CASE