The new jordan peterson money spinner...

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/998597937717366785/pu/vid/640x360/K4MnaXdq36BTfEAe.mp4?tag=3

Hopefully the link works, couldn't find anything specific on youtube. It's a clip on his statements regarding dna and snakes.

 

In the one I watched he also basically opened it up to almost any image of a snake in antiquity. One snake or two, spirally intertwined or just tails together. It's all a manifestation of some unconscious knowledge of DNA because it looks a bit like it.
The thing is...DNA is not just spirally intertwined like two snakes. It's a double helix where one helix take a very similar path as the other. The picture Peterson uses isn't like the structure of DNA.

 

Hahah...what a load of old flannel.

 

My beliefs on symbolic interpretation in any regards is that it's generally not enough information to make a decision on, and if it's the only information you have in making a decision you've poorly prepared yourself for making said decision or you've just found yourself in a crappy situation.

That said, I think you have a misunderstanding of what it means to interpret things symbolically. Symbolic representation of something sometimes isn't even remotely similar to what it's trying to describe. I think it would be better to argue that symbolic representation isn't reliable information to go off of rather than trying to denounce an idea of a symbol as not being as concrete as the science. That's a bit of a non argument, as it's obvious symbols aren't concrete evidence of something factual and specific.

 

I understand a bit about symbolic representation in art and culture. Damn...went to art college for 3+ years and had whole lectures on symbols and their use in art where sometimes, arguably, the symbolic interpretation was in the mind of the observer rather than the artist. Although obviously many artists freely (if not always openly) used symbolism in their art to great effect. Whole books have been written on paintings like "The Ambassadors".
My issue isn't that art and culture can (and do) have symbolic meanings and sub-text. And sometimes that symbolism can be opaque or esoteric in nature.
My issue is the idea that those sumbols and meanings reference something that that culture had no knowledge of (like the structure of DNA before Watson, Crick and Franklin) just because there is some superficial resemblance.
It's wishful thinking pareidolia IMHO and unbecoming of someone that aspires to be a public or respected intellectual.

I could do a painting today that symbolically represents DNA...the interwtinned roots of a cosmic tree poisoned by mans polution. Because I know what the structure is.
An ancient chinese artist couldn't symbolically represent DNA because they didn't know it existed let alone what structure it has.

 

Ah, so obviously a reach into the collective biology-unconscious rather than a depiction of snakes doing a thing that they actually do. Of course.

 

That music is very off-putting.

 

There's another clip on youtube where he's in a classroom, significantly prior to the video I linked where he states he actually believes the whole snake/dna thing. It's very different from the video I linked in which he is not as confident in proclaiming a belief. Whether or not at the time he made the excitement may have just been one of those moments in his own studies he got excited and made a bad statement which he refined/corrected in the second video, or he's manipulative is up to speculation. I'm willing to grant him the former after having read his 12 rules for life book, even though I think a lot of his associations with ancient belief, religion, and symbolism and human nature/psychology I find a bit wonky. I don't detect purposeful, hostile intention and manipulation as much as some people do, which is odd because I'm generally a lot more cynical than most. On the flip side he also seems like somebody I would not want to hang out with as a friend, but that I wouldn't mind doing business with.

"An ancient chinese artist couldn't symbolically represent DNA because they didn't know it existed let alone what structure it has."

I generally agree with this, and I agree with it in the context you're using it. One of the issues I have with symbology, and a major problem I have with a lot of artists, is that symbols can be used to represent near anything. I start checking out of the conversation when symbols or anything really abstract gets involved. I find often that the meaning of symbols change to fit a narrative, and it's not the fault of the person using it as much as it's the fault in the belief that symbols mean something significant. Symbols mean something significant when it's agreed upon by a group of people to mean a certain thing, and only that thing, and that often gets distorted even over a short period of time. It's something a lot of people fall into because you can reflect your own beliefs and thoughts onto them.

With that I don't think you can attack somebody for a belief in a symbol and what it represents and be as successful as you want to be. I think it's better to dismantle the assumption that the use of symbols are meaningful beyond personal speculation. Without the original designer of the symbol in the conversation, no matter how ridiculous the claims around the symbol are, it's all speculation. Better to just not acknowledge it at all as having some sort of tangible significance.

Or maybe ancient man was a lot smarter than we give them credit for, or there were aliens that imparted great knowledge upon us, or whatever.

 

Not my proudest Crisco moment.

 

Yeah that's the one I've seen I think. Craziness.

 

I've looked into a reddit thread about this and the full video isn't used in him saying that, but he has been misquoted before when he talks about things in hypothetical's and thought exercises.

A few people have been doing this for decades and a permanent lifestyle choice. That study about red meat and increasing chance of cancer is incredibly flawed and has been dismantled multiple times by multiple people. It did not take into account other factors like smoking or levels of activity, nor did it differentiate red meat as sausage, pepperoni, bacon as opposed to grass fed steak.

... He hasn't been selling this diet... nor has she. He even says multiple times he isn't advocating this diet for anyone else but just what he's currently doing because people keep asking him about it.

 

Thats
A) Basic marketing to disarm people
B) a legal nessessity because otherwise you can get sued.

And his daughter is selling Skype appointments for people on this subject, so yes she is making money on this.

 

Point A could be said if he was a buddah or jesus christ level in his intent to help people. It really doesn't say much. Point B I don't believe is true. There's a lot of people actively promoting this diet, or other diets, or a myriad of other things that don't get sued, even when it's false. As for his daughter, I don't see anything wrong with this if she's providing her own personal time for something. It wouldn't matter if it's how to put a thread through a needle on the first try . . . . if somebody is going to buy it that's on them is it not? I don't think it really matters if she's using peterson's popularity to capitalize on it, or he's using himself to help benefit his daughter. I don't feel like that's relevant in any way.

 

I am absolutely fine with Jordan Peterson fans committing to a meat-only diet.

Not only am I fine with it, I positively encourage it.

Speaking of a lack of scientific knowledge, anyone see his ant tweet gaffe? Unfortunately I can't link to it here because of rude words, but he posted a link to a study about ants and robots that he obviously hadn't read past the title, thinking that it supported his ideas of Pareto principle social Darwinism, when people who had actually read it pointed out that it actually pointed to equally distributed labour and leisure time in nature... it's more funny with the naughty words though.

 

So the science is in!

 

He reminds me of ensign kim from star trek voyager

 

The Jordan Peterson All-Meat Diet


A new interview with the daughter about her "all beef diet".

 

And guess who's now on the Joe rogan show / Oprah for dudes......

 

JRE is good, what's your problem with him?

 

It's mostly entertaining, but he has a whole host of kooky guests, some of which are very dodgy.... (and others who are very very legit)

For example of dodgy Alex Jones, and non dodgy neil degrasse Tyson, it's just a good entertainment show, and lots of people forget that.