GM! I stopped watching Peterson last year. He's so arrogant sometimes, and he never tries to learn about economics or individualist anarchism, even though they are extremely relevant to his position of influence and the topics he covers. I feel like he conveniently forgot about everything that Michael Malice taught him about anarchy last year. And his recent work just doesn't have that much to offer me.
Discussion
don't you have that feeling that he's stuck because nobody understands what he's actually saying (or fail to understand). I mean like that feeling when you have conversation with a wall or something
Like he runs into am impediment where the other person is just not able to further the conversation to help him understand something he's trying to clarify? He often has gotten that, yes. But so do I and it hasn't stopped me from learning major insights from all kinds of different people. Because I pursue what I don't understand until I understand it.
yes. and I think he's now in that "bees don't care to explain flies ..." position.
which is kind of understandable given how much talk he does.
(disclaimer: I'm not a fan, neither opponent)
Totally. He even did a pod with Saifedean. Then another with Vallis, Breedlove, and Gigi. Sometimes I think he doesn’t want the solution, he just wants to complain, which is far more monetizeable. I like his interpersonal and personal development stuff, but on bigger picture topics, I can’t take someone seriously unless they’re radically against central banking and also loudly pro Bitcoin. Otherwise they have critical gaps missing from their models.
Completely agree. A lot of movements or corporations set up for the advancement of solutions to real problems, as well as the people in them, end up turning into an institution predicated on complaining about the problem and usurping sympathy, and profiting only from that rather than from results. Charities, revolutionary movements, and libertarian leaning political parties often follow this arc.
Many grassroots intellectual figures who start with some great insight that has great results, like that personal development stuff, end up in a state of arrested development and uselessness, except as a Schelling point for further intellectual discussion and the marketplace of ideas. Whether and to what degree their followers or casual listeners progress beyond them becomes the primary determinant of progress. Not all intellectuals follow such an arc into stagnation or, worse, derangement, but it is very common due to the way most people are not willing to put an idea to the test before believing it.
So basically, you gotta be really disciplined in your intellectual models and, ideally, really, radically open to criticism. Being a Bitcoiner against central banks is a pretty good sign of that!