你们怎么知道Peterson的？

来自: YUSKI 2018-02-08 12:42:48

我老婆曾经在他实验室做RA。很早她就说Peterson在UT是很火的老师，难选上课。

我做过两年华人小报编辑，我老婆联系有一次约好要采访他（12年），因为他那时在搞一个海洋环保的project，而正好赶上多伦多禁止销售鱼翅，华人社区闹得很厉害。那时我也挺左的，由于版面登了太多挺禁的人（包括那个Sharkwater纪录片的制作人也聊了），Peterson采访就被老板禁止了（可惜），因为华人MP都反对，而小报也靠华人MP们撑门面...就不得不登了一些保守党的采访。其实很多环保主义也是极左的，Peterson搞这个项目也没什么下文，猜可能也想通了这不靠谱了？

后来也没关注过他，但因为我一直在听Sam Harris的podcast，去年1月听了他和Sam Harris的两期podcast才觉得他关于科学、Truth、以及神话的观点很吸引我。作为一个多年道金斯铁粉，我开始了反思......我后来读了maps of meaning（老婆当时的教科书）以及看了一些他personality 课的视频，收益匪浅，感觉自己17年思想上有了很多变化，虽然不是100%同意Peterson的一些关于宗教的观点。

17年一年，Peterson在世界上火了，却是因为在政治议题上....观点上其实他和Dawkins、Sam Harris包括Steven Pinker等人立场其实都差不多，Peterson可能更生猛点。反后现代主义在科学圈子一直有人在喊，连乔姆斯基这种无政府主义者从70年代起就反对后现代主义、法兰克福学派、Neo-marxism ，但都是雷声大雨点小，这次可算被Peterson把议题炒热了，当然互联网的传播力也助力不少。

加入小组后即可参加投票

确定

回应转发赞收藏只看楼主

JonathanLin 2018-02-08 18:33:19

因为排排的微博

删除 |

赞回应
挥着大刀の猫球 (“来，接着作！”) 2018-02-08 19:58:07

是在youtube上面我fo的一个频道叫做charisma on command做了一期以他和cathy的那个访谈为素材的视频，看完了之后youtube又推荐了别的以他为主角的视频，然后就一个个看下去了。。

删除 |

赞回应
YUSKI 楼主 2018-02-08 20:31:43

其实我比较喜欢他UT的课的视频

删除 |

赞回应
MUSE (一个被学术耽误的设计师。) 2018-02-10 02:24:19

我是YouTube 推荐，可能是因为之前就经常看自我提升类的视频，根据相关度推荐的。

删除 |

赞回应
TheFormless 2018-02-12 15:26:23

Joe Rogan Podcast #877

删除 |

赞回应
Silence 翔 2018-02-14 01:17:01

因为微博关注的人转了大心脏排排才接触到

删除 |

赞回应
Larry 2018-02-25 08:38:07

I learned about Dr. Peterson from his opposition to Bill C-16. It is exactly what he said, that I 'came for the scandal and stayed for the content.' Just to comment on YUSKI's last paragraph, I do not think Peterson has similar positions to Dawkins, Harris and Pinker. He reiterated in many occasions that Dawkins and Harris are rationalists who think they are Darwinians. He considers himself a Darwinian largely due to his work in decyphering mythology. So, yes, perhaps Peterson and Dawkins are both against postmodernism, but they have fundamentally different rationales and world views.

删除 |

赞回应
balconycookies (小白它大娘) 2018-02-26 03:36:10

16年时大战bill c16特别是和几个女权教授律师的辩论会开始走红

删除 |

赞回应
YUSKI 楼主 2018-03-09 00:05:55

I learned about Dr. Peterson from his opposition to Bill C-16. It is exactly what he said, I learned about Dr. Peterson from his opposition to Bill C-16. It is exactly what he said, that I 'came for the scandal and stayed for the content.' Just to comment on YUSKI's last paragraph, I do not think Peterson has similar positions to Dawkins, Harris and Pinker. He reiterated in many occasions that Dawkins and Harris are rationalists who think they are Darwinians. He considers himself a Darwinian largely due to his work in decyphering mythology. So, yes, perhaps Peterson and Dawkins are both against postmodernism, but they have fundamentally different rationales and world views. ... Larry

I know they are different in their view on religion as well as fundamental perception on what constitute truth and object world. But they are agreed on the classical liberal idea of free speech. I also think they all agree that the scientific method,rather than ideology, should serve as primarily tool to approach complex social problem such as gender difference.

删除 |

赞回应
Leoal (这个世界是颠倒的) 2018-03-12 11:15:03

万维钢推荐，一路跟踪过来，已入坑。

删除 |

赞回应
Larry 2018-03-15 07:38:23

I know they are different in their view on religion as well as fundamental perception on w I know they are different in their view on religion as well as fundamental perception on what constitute truth and object world. But they are agreed on the classical liberal idea of free speech. I also think they all agree that the scientific method,rather than ideology, should serve as primarily tool to approach complex social problem such as gender difference. ... YUSKI

To the best of my understanding, Dr. Peterson views science as a tool for certain levels of analysis. To paraphrase his words, it is a useful tool, but not the only tool. Ideology for him, however, is a rather horrible tool. His position is that ideology is not remotely comparable to religion in terms of complexity and function in light of his research into archetypal stories in mythology. Hence, according to what I have heard and read of him, he rarely, or perhaps never, compares science and ideology. Rather often, he would compare science and religion, and ideology and religion. To come back to the latter part of your assersion, I would kindly disagree and suggest that he does regard science as a useful tool, especially evolutionary psychology that he has explicitly iterated that his analyses are in line with, but he does not consider science the only tool, or maybe even the most important tool, e.g. in one of his lectures he mentioned that scientists are only scientific in their labs, and once they leave their labs, science becomes a secondary tool for them to make sense of the world. He seems to suggest things we could learn from archetypal stories in old texts like the Bible are better tools for us to navigate the world for evolutionarily speaking we are the very embodiment of ideals from those stories. We have decided to act out those ideals, and now we are trying to understand why.

删除 |

赞回应
YUSKI 楼主 2018-03-15 19:39:15

To the best of my understanding, Dr. Peterson views science as a tool for certain levels o To the best of my understanding, Dr. Peterson views science as a tool for certain levels of analysis. To paraphrase his words, it is a useful tool, but not the only tool. Ideology for him, however, is a rather horrible tool. His position is that ideology is not remotely comparable to religion in terms of complexity and function in light of his research into archetypal stories in mythology. Hence, according to what I have heard and read of him, he rarely, or perhaps never, compares science and ideology. Rather often, he would compare science and religion, and ideology and religion. To come back to the latter part of your assersion, I would kindly disagree and suggest that he does regard science as a useful tool, especially evolutionary psychology that he has explicitly iterated that his analyses are in line with, but he does not consider science the only tool, or maybe even the most important tool, e.g. in one of his lectures he mentioned that scientists are only scientific in their labs, and once they leave their labs, science becomes a secondary tool for them to make sense of the world. He seems to suggest things we could learn from archetypal stories in old texts like the Bible are better tools for us to navigate the world for evolutionarily speaking we are the very embodiment of ideals from those stories. We have decided to act out those ideals, and now we are trying to understand why. ... Larry

My understanding of Peterson is very similar as yours. I don't know why you think I would consider scientific method is the only tool. I said scientific method should be used when discussing complex social problem. That is part of reason that Peterson despise post-modernism that denies reason and ignore careful analysis of stats. It is also why, in his book, he included over 200 citations to support his claim. And in various interview, he have to explain the overlap and extreme in the stats of gender differences. To me, this is scientific method, and he does consider, and claimed he is a scientist.

删除 |

赞回应
Larry 2018-03-15 22:59:12

My understanding of Peterson is very similar as yours. I don't know why you think I would My understanding of Peterson is very similar as yours. I don't know why you think I would consider scientific method is the only tool. I said scientific method should be used when discussing complex social problem. That is part of reason that Peterson despise post-modernism that denies reason and ignore careful analysis of stats. It is also why, in his book, he included over 200 citations to support his claim. And in various interview, he have to explain the overlap and extreme in the stats of gender differences. To me, this is scientific method, and he does consider, and claimed he is a scientist. ... YUSKI

I do not think I have implied that you considered that the "scientific method is the only tool." I thought we were discussing Dr. Peterson's views. I think I have mainly argued against your asserssion that Dr. Peterson considers science "as a *primary* tool to approach complex social problems."

删除 |

赞回应
YUSKI 楼主 2018-03-15 23:14:54

I do not think I have implied that you considered that the "scientific method is the I do not think I have implied that you considered that the "scientific method is the only tool." I thought we were discussing Dr. Peterson's views. I think I have mainly argued against your asserssion that Dr. Peterson considers science "as a *primary* tool to approach complex social problems." ... Larry

I do think he thinks science should be primary tool when discussing certain complex SOCIAL ISSUES such as gender difference. You can't argue gender difference, within the context of current gender debate, from metaphysics or epistemology or faith, you based off your argument on stats and experiments. That's exactly what he did in his book and interview and lectures. I agree with him that we don't perceive things as what it is , but how we will act. But when we discuss things fall into the realm of science (i.e.whether there is gender differences ), science should be applied.

删除 |

赞回应
Larry 2018-03-15 23:43:49

I do think he thinks science should be primary tool when discussing certain complex SOCIAL I do think he thinks science should be primary tool when discussing certain complex SOCIAL ISSUES such as gender difference. You can't argue gender difference, within the context of current gender debate, from metaphysics or epistemology or faith, you based off your argument on stats and experiments. That's exactly what he did in his book and interview and lectures. I agree with him that we don't perceive things as what it is , but how we will act. But when we discuss things fall into the realm of science (i.e.whether there is gender differences ), science should be applied. ... YUSKI

One of the themes of Dr. Peterson's is that analyses can be done on different levels. He reiterated in many occasions that science can provide some levels of analyses. Another theme of his is pragmatism with respect to analyses, that is, just because an analysis can be done does not mean it is useful. There is a strong religious undertone in his views. Thus, from his perspective, there are arguably more useful tools for human beings to tackle the world's most pressing problems. He has made it clear, for example, in his introduction to his Bible series. https://www.jordanbpeterson/bible-series/ Notice how he differentiates knowledge derived from archetypal stories, from history and science; and emphasizes its psychological and social significance.

删除 |

赞回应
YUSKI 楼主 2018-03-16 02:38:21

One of the themes of Dr. Peterson's is that analyses can be done on different levels. He r One of the themes of Dr. Peterson's is that analyses can be done on different levels. He reiterated in many occasions that science can provide some levels of analyses. Another theme of his is pragmatism with respect to analyses, that is, just because an analysis can be done does not mean it is useful. There is a strong religious undertone in his views. Thus, from his perspective, there are arguably more useful tools for human beings to tackle the world's most pressing problems. He has made it clear, for example, in his introduction to his Bible series. https://www.jordanbpeterson/bible-series/ Notice how he differentiates knowledge derived from archetypal stories, from history and science; and emphasizes its psychological and social significance. ... Larry

I am not so sure why you are avoiding to address my point directly. There are things falls in that narrow domain of science and science should be applied. I am not saying that science should be applied exclusively. I think I made my point very clear and I gave you a specific example. I read Peterson extensively (Including maps of meaning ), and I am fully aware and agree his view on science and religion.

删除 |

赞回应
Larry 2018-03-16 09:30:27

I am not so sure why you are avoiding to address my point directly. There are things falls I am not so sure why you are avoiding to address my point directly. There are things falls in that narrow domain of science and science should be applied. I am not saying that science should be applied exclusively. I think I made my point very clear and I gave you a specific example. I read Peterson extensively (Including maps of meaning ), and I am fully aware and agree his view on science and religion. ... YUSKI

I think Dr. Peterson would argue that nothing falls into the narrow domain of science. Take gender differences as an example. Different levels of analyses can be done in biology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, linguistics, law, politics, economics, philosophy, theology, and the list goes on. We know that many of them, which generally fall into humanities and social science, are, according to Dr. Peterson, not science at all. He pointed out that often what we are trying to do is to figure out which level of analysis should apply, and suggested that often it has already been chosen for us without us knowing it consciously; and often it is not science. Regarding his position on gender differences, he would not have cared more had not the implications of identity politics been detrimental to, say, free speech. For him, ideals like this are not derivatives of science but something else. This theological underpinning is what drives him to use one tool or another, be it science or not, to act out in the world, including defending free speech in the context of Bill C-16.

删除 |

赞回应
Olivia (应该是内心闷骚) 2018-03-27 10:17:10

微信群发的视频知道他的，视频内容是一个采访，觉得他很优雅从容睿智。

删除 |

赞回应
oeo.rar 2018-04-14 13:52:13

油管的视频推荐～中文的翻译太少，自己看总是不能完全看懂，很感谢排排做的翻译～

删除 |

赞回应
Pedro 2018-05-23 19:36:59

一月份那次辩论。然后之后去YOUTUBE搜他的视频。

删除 |

赞回应
Mitsuo (有希望准备中) 2018-06-15 09:18:59

I do think he thinks science should be primary tool when discussing certain complex SOCIAL I do think he thinks science should be primary tool when discussing certain complex SOCIAL ISSUES such as gender difference. You can't argue gender difference, within the context of current gender debate, from metaphysics or epistemology or faith, you based off your argument on stats and experiments. That's exactly what he did in his book and interview and lectures. I agree with him that we don't perceive things as what it is , but how we will act. But when we discuss things fall into the realm of science (i.e.whether there is gender differences ), science should be applied. ... YUSKI

道金斯铁粉+1路过欢迎指正：https://www.douban.com/doulist/9678379/ ：）

删除 |

赞回应
betsy (too weak) 2018-07-19 12:38:42

去年11月左右在网上心理学课程找到的map of meaning，当背景音乐上班时听的2015年的第一节intro 课，一下就被hook了！然后查了查他，发现原来是之前那个controversial的pronoun教授（朋友2年前有聊过但当时没仔细听）。之前还有查查existentialism, 那堂课讲的很好。bf 也hook 上了。他讲的很多对我有很大帮助。从此之后基本上把youtube & podcast 都听了。

删除 |

赞回应
正直的表贩子 (一个正直的表贩子) 2019-10-01 08:15:28

去看Joe Rogan的Joe Rogan Experience，里面采访了JP三次，一次做饭的时候在听podcast，就觉得很是喜欢，开始查这个有趣的人，然后就买了他的书。

删除 |

赞回应
HeathLedger 2019-11-11 15:18:18

也是Sam Harris ,Robin Report，Joe Rogan，还有他的心理学课程等等，综合来说YouTube 吧

删除 |

赞回应
MikeRival (反真) 2019-12-30 15:48:20

惭愧，B站首页刷出来的，剪辑是如何不拖延

删除 |

赞回应
pocoapoco 2020-01-01 19:59:30

因为追星看到荣格这个名字，然后b站上搜荣格，就不知道为什么就看到了jp，还有一个up主大心脏排排，看了她的很多翻译关于jp的视频

删除 |

赞回应
POPPER 2020-01-08 12:53:53

好像是算法推荐的😂

删除 |

赞回应
七仔 (我想有一双猫头鹰的眼睛) 2020-02-06 07:25:13

在b站上搜圣经的相关视频搜出来的

删除 |

赞回应
精神宽街人 2020-03-29 03:37:21

他课程看了以后一见如故觉得很有意思从第一集就吸引我。但是看片段时候对他印象是不好的（因为是川粉转他的反性别政策视频

删除 |

赞回应
精神宽街人 2020-03-29 03:39:29

华人社区这么沉迷鱼翅吗……感觉加拿大华人好可怕

删除 |

赞回应
mochenprince 2020-10-09 16:51:30

因为读12 rules

删除 |

赞回应
Inland_Dunes 2020-12-04 09:42:59

一年前同事推荐的～

删除 |

赞回应
Kunverse 2021-04-14 23:29:37

因为一个Youtube频道，PragerU，教授在这上面发了一个5mins左右的视频，最后他的一句“你问我怎么才能知道自己做的哪些事情是错误的？”然后盯着镜头淡定的来了一句“不要再自欺欺人了，你自己知道”哇，这，当时就把我给惊艳到了，绝对高人。于是开始看他的课程、书籍、演讲，刚买了 selfauthoring, Beyand Order, Maps of Meaning，正在潜心学习。

删除 |

赞回应
马丁田 2022-02-07 21:17:23

我是读心理学书籍，从书里索引过来的

删除 |

赞回应