Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Wibbs

The nature/nurture debate has long raged, though these days it has also taken on a wider "political" angle for some reason. In very basic terms the "Right" consider nature to be the arbiter of what defines human nature, while the "Left" consider nurture to be the driver.

What hard science that has been applied seems to show a six of one, half dozen of the other with most aspects of human nature, with nature slightly ahead in some, nurture slightly ahead in others. The softer sciences like sociology and to some degree psychology also show this 50/50 split, though from a different angle. Namely that you will find "studies" that concretely support both positions depending on the researchers take going in. A near sure indicator that the reality meets in the middle.

Brian?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

As in your base personality traits. These things are just in there when you are born. Things like kindness or greediness, aggression, are you caring or cold, extroverted or introverted, things like that.

So your entire personality?

The idea that we're born as some genderless, personality free, empty vessel and then filled up through experience to make the people we become is nothing short of pure horse shít.

Calm down there. No one is suggesting that’s the case.

People are hard wired in certain ways. But it’s mostly the same for everyone. Dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin responses to certain things. How these chemicals are produced in certain situations is part nature and part nurture.

Some people lack empathy: psychopaths being the most famous. Some of the things I’ve read show these people have problems with producing the chemicals above. But then not all psychopaths go on to become serial killers. All serial killers are triggered by something, often childhood trauma. So why are the mass murderers? Nature or nurture? I would say both.

sbsquarepants

Brian? wrote: »

So your entire personality?

No, your core personality.

Brian? wrote: »

Calm down there. No one is suggesting that’s the case.

There are people who suggest that basically is the case. I didn't mean to suggest you were one of them!

Brian? wrote: »

People are hard wired in certain ways. But it’s mostly the same for everyone. Dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin responses to certain things. How these chemicals are produced in certain situations is part nature and part nurture.

Some people lack empathy: psychopaths being the most famous. Some of the things I’ve read show these people have problems with producing the chemicals above. But then not all psychopaths go on to become serial killers. All serial killers are triggered by something, often childhood trauma. So why are the mass murderers? Nature or nurture? I would say both.

Psychopaths are born - that's the core of what they are - the way they act can be altered by nurturing to an extent. At the extremes of the psychopath bell curve you could end up with some Gordon Gecko style wall street millionaire, callously merging companies and slashing jobs to make a quid, or a loner with a basement full of dead hitchhikers, but of the vast bulk who make up the middle area of that curve, not a single one of them will be weeping into their tissues while watching a chick flick.

Why not? It's just not in their nature.

At their core they just are what they are - same as us all.

ILoveYourVibes

I hear things like its human nature to have what you don't want and want what you don't have.

I think its more you have what society idolizes. Even if you already have it.

Society idolizes thinness and beauty. So even girls/boys who have this ....want more even to an unhealthy level.

Anorexia /bigorexia.

The term human nature ....its too individualist.


Societal nature / familial nature/ cultural nature etc ...they are important too.

I don't really think pyschos are born. I think we all could be psychos. I think i could be one and you too.

Society idolizes money ...so even people who have money ...want more get lost to it ...people who don't ..resent people who do...

Society idolizes romantic love. So people want love. They feel they deserve it. They feel they are entitled to love.

People think a marriage has love in it every day ...all the time. Its all about love. That's all. You don't need anything else.

There are some qualities that are part of being homosapien. Some are programmed though.

Also you could argue they are not just part of human nature. Animals share some traits with us. Like the old pet that gets jealous of the new.

ILoveYourVibes

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No, your core personality.

Do you think i am the same core personality i was when i was 7 or 10 etc? Just wondering.

ILoveYourVibes

WBC Tyson Fury wrote: »

When you were 7 or 10 you probably prioritised your self interest just like you do now, as per human nature.

What does that mean though? What would it look like?

Its a bit vague.

I find 7 yr olds very altruistic. Like inviting homeless people home altruistic.

suicide_circus

gender is all about nurture and society. babies are born as a genderless blank slate. except in cases of trans kids where there gender is hardwired in the brain as the opposite from their biological sex.

and in terms of sexuality, that's hardwired from birth except in cases of heterosexuals, where that's down to social pressure to conform.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

suicide_circus wrote: »

gender is all about nurture and society. babies are born as a genderless blank slate. except in cases of trans kids where there gender is hardwired in the brain as the opposite from their biological sex.

and in terms of sexuality, that's hardwired from birth except in cases of heterosexuals, where that's down to social pressure to conform.

The famous David Reimer case would seem to oppose that view. Castrated as a baby after a circumcision blunder, the decision was made to raise him as a girl from very young with disastrous results. And why is there an exception made for trans children? Couldn’t we all be hardwired in some way and for most of us, it matches our biological sex? No other children are sure of their gender? That honestly seems pseudoscientific but I’m open to seeing some research on it.

EDIT: You were joking. Never mind.

Gynoid

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The famous David Reimer case would seem to oppose that view. Castrated as a baby after a circumcision blunder, the decision was made to raise him as a girl from very young with disastrous results. And why is there an exception made for trans children? Couldn’t we all be hardwired in some way and for most of us, it matches our biological sex? No other children are sure of their gender? That honestly seems pseudoscientific but I’m open to seeing some research on it.

You are correct, ODB. SC loves a bit of satirical truthspeak

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gynoid wrote: »

You are correct, ODB. SC loves a bit of satirical truthspeak

Oh, I missed the sarcasm. Whoops!

Gynoid

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh, I missed the sarcasm. Whoops!

That's me most of the time. Straight over me head

ILoveYourVibes

WBC Tyson Fury wrote: »

Really, very altruistic? Have you ever seen 7 year olds fight over toys?

There are common traits people tend to have, people prefer to be high status to low status, people prefer to be respected than disrespected. People's favourite subject is usually themselves. People are more likely to laugh at the joke of a high status person compared to a low status person.

I never did though. My brother and i never ever fought.
My toys were his toys ..even if he got them sticky.

I mean who am i going to play with my toys with ?? I am just going to melt barbie on my own??? Who is going to enjoy her screams with me? Who is going to pull me back saying i went to far?

Who is going to be my pretend baby when i am only 7??


Who am i going to start my first band with at 8???

The rest i probably agree with though. People laugh at my jokes less because i am low status. I am actually hilarious!

Brian?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No, your core personality.

I honestly don't recognise the term "core personality" from any reading I've done. I think we have pre programmed responses hard wired into us. These are basically the chemical responses to stimuli in our brains. Even those can be changed with talk and drug therapy.

People who experiment with hallucinogens like LSD and DMT definitely report changes in personality. Brain chemistry is the most important factor of personality, for most of what I've read and this can be altered for most people.

There are people who suggest that basically is the case. I didn't mean to suggest you were one of them!

Ok. Sound.

Psychopaths are born - that's the core of what they are - the way they act can be altered by nurturing to an extent. At the extremes of the psychopath bell curve you could end up with some Gordon Gecko style wall street millionaire, callously merging companies and slashing jobs to make a quid, or a loner with a basement full of dead hitchhikers, but of the vast bulk who make up the middle area of that curve, not a single one of them will be weeping into their tissues while watching a chick flick.

Why not? It's just not in their nature.

At their core they just are what they are - same as us all.

I agree with everything you said up to the last lime. Psychopaths are exceptions. The reason they are so different is poorly understood. But the conversion of a psychopath into a sociopath is well documented. You take a psychopath and add a terrible childhood, you end up with a sociopath serial killer. Nature and nutrue combined. Which one is more important? I would say nurture, because a well nurtured psychopath can be a productive member of society.

sbsquarepants

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Do you think i am the same core personality i was when i was 7 or 10 etc? Just wondering.

Basically yes. I don't mean the surface you, i mean the "real" you.

Obviously you have gone on to be educated and refined, but if you were say an especially anxious 7 year old, odds are you will still be an anxious 17, 27, 87 year old. You can learn strategies / tricks to mitigate it, but it's still in there.

For example there are any number of stars who are actually quite shy - they have learned to overcome it and perform and for all intents and purposes it appears that they are anything but shy, but the shyness is still there, it needs to be subdued before going on stage, you can't just dump it and become Mr. Extrovert because that's what you want.

Brian? wrote: »

I honestly don't recognise the term "core personality" from any reading I've done. I think we have pre programmed responses hard wired into us. These are basically the chemical responses to stimuli in our brains. Even those can be changed with talk and drug therapy.

The term may not be scientifically accurate, but i'd suggest you know what i mean by it none the less.

You don't accept that some people are just kinder than others, greedier, braver, more cowardly, smarter, dumber, more honest or dishonest, more shy or outgoing or any other number of differences which i suggest are plainly obvious to anyone who has ever met other people?

Brian? wrote: »

People who experiment with hallucinogens like LSD and DMT definitely report changes in personality. Brain chemistry is the most important factor of personality, for most of what I've read and this can be altered for most people.

I've taken a lot of hallucinogens in the past and the experience can be extremely profound, sometimes can take days or even weeks to process, and it can effect the way you view the world to an extent - but no it's not going to change your base personality.

Larry Murphy isn't going to drop acid and turn into Mary Poppins! Or at the very least he'll just turn right back once the acid wears off.

Brian? wrote: »

I agree with everything you said up to the last lime. Psychopaths are exceptions. The reason they are so different is poorly understood. But the conversion of a psychopath into a sociopath is well documented. You take a psychopath and add a terrible childhood, you end up with a sociopath serial killer. Nature and nutrue combined. Which one is more important? I would say nurture, because a well nurtured psychopath can be a productive member of society.

Again, no it's not. Sociopath and serial killer are not interchangeable terms either.

Lot's of people have terrible childhoods - they don't all go on to be killers, some grow up to be violent and dangerous, others withdrawn and timid and a danger only to themselves, some go on to give their own kids a similarly terrible childhood, some go the opposite way and become amazing parents determined to give their kids the best lives possible.

Why the differences?

Because some people are just nicer, kinder, colder, more cruel, etc - the terrible childhood is almost incidental. Jeffrey Dahmer was always going to be nasty and dishonest, because at his core he was a total cúnt - no matter what his childhood was like.

You may or may not recognise the term "total cúnt" from your reading either, but you probably know what I mean by it!:D

Brian?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Basically yes. I don't mean the surface you, i mean the "real" you.

Obviously you have gone on to be educated and refined, but if you were say an especially anxious 7 year old, odds are you will still be an anxious 17, 27, 87 year old. You can learn strategies / tricks to mitigate it, but it's still in there.

For example there are any number of stars who are actually quite shy - they have learned to overcome it and perform and for all intents and purposes it appears that they are anything but shy, but the shyness is still there, it needs to be subdued before going on stage, you can't just dump it and become Mr. Extrovert because that's what you want.



The term may not be scientifically accurate, but i'd suggest you know what i mean by it none the less.

You don't accept that some people are just kinder than others, greedier, braver, more cowardly, smarter, dumber, more honest or dishonest, more shy or outgoing or any other number of differences which i suggest are plainly obvious to anyone who has ever met other people?




I've taken a lot of hallucinogens in the past and the experience can be extremely profound, sometimes can take days or even weeks to process, and it can effect the way you view the world to an extent - but no it's not going to change your base personality.

Larry Murphy isn't going to drop acid and turn into Mary Poppins! Or at the very least he'll just turn right back once the acid wears off.





Again, no it's not. Sociopath and serial killer are not interchangeable terms either.

Lot's of people have terrible childhoods - they don't all go on to be killers, some grow up to be violent and dangerous, others withdrawn and timid and a danger only to themselves, some go on to give their own kids a similarly terrible childhood, some go the opposite way and become amazing parents determined to give their kids the best lives possible.

Why the differences?

Because some people are just nicer, kinder, colder, more cruel, etc - the terrible childhood is almost incidental. Jeffrey Dahmer was always going to be nasty and dishonest, because at his core he was a total cúnt - no matter what his childhood was like.

You may or may not recognise the term "total cúnt" from your reading either, but you probably know what I mean by it!:D

Nothing you're saying actually contradicts what I am saying at all.

Some people are hard wired to be more empathic, caring and collaborative. Some people are hard wired to be the opposite. What really determines whether they are passable decent human beings in the end is nurture.

People like Jeffrey Dahmer were triggered by events in their childhood to become serial killers. If he was raised in a loving, accepting home there's every chance he would have been a CEO or US senator. There is an entire department of behavioural psychologists in the FBI who catch criminals based on these ideas.

sbsquarepants

Brian? wrote: »

Nothing you're saying actually contradicts what I am saying at all.

Some people are hard wired to be more empathic, caring and collaborative. Some people are hard wired to be the opposite. What really determines whether they are passable decent human beings in the end is nurture.

People like Jeffrey Dahmer were triggered by events in their childhood to become serial killers. If he was raised in a loving, accepting home there's every chance he would have been a CEO or US senator. There is an entire department of behavioural psychologists in the FBI who catch criminals based on these ideas.

I'm saying the opposite.

Dahmer was triggered by some trauma in his childhood, so nurture definitely played it's part but was it the driving force? I'd argue it wasn't, it was his innate nature. Many more kids have terrible childhoods than go on to be serial killers, so terrible childhoods are clearly not what makes a serial killer. Similarly, many more kids have loving caring homes than go on to be CEO's or US senators.

Take 3 unfortunate kids, give them equally terrible childhoods - abuse, neglect all that lovely stuff we hear about far too often.

Kid 1 turns out a timid wreck
Kid 2 turns out relatively normal
Kid 3 turns out to be a serial killer

The difference is nature, not nurture.

Brian? wrote: »

There is an entire department of behavioural psychologists in the FBI who catch criminals based on these ideas.

And they are woefully inept.

The vast majority of people like Dahmer are caught by blind chance, an unrelated traffic stop, or a neighbour complains about noise or something entirely unrelated to their crimes. Increasingly they are being caught by entirely unrelated DNA signals.

Behavioural psychologists are about as useful as psychics in catching people like these.

Brian?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm saying the opposite.

Dahmer was triggered by some trauma in his childhood, so nurture definitely played it's part but was it the driving force? I'd argue it wasn't, it was his innate nature. Many more kids have terrible childhoods than go on to be serial killers, so terrible childhoods are clearly not what makes a serial killer. Similarly, many more kids have loving caring homes than go on to be CEO's or US senators.

Take 3 unfortunate kids, give them equally terrible childhoods - abuse, neglect all that lovely stuff we hear about far too often.

Kid 1 turns out a timid wreck
Kid 2 turns out relatively normal
Kid 3 turns out to be a serial killer

The difference is nature, not nurture.



And they are woefully inept.

The vast majority of people like Dahmer are caught by blind chance, an unrelated traffic stop, or a neighbour complains about noise or something entirely unrelated to their crimes. Increasingly they are being caught by entirely unrelated DNA signals.

Behavioural psychologists are about as useful as psychics in catching people like these.

You're say nature and nurture and both important. So am I. Let's leave it here, it's going in circles.

sbsquarepants

Brian? wrote: »

You're say nature and nurture and both important. So am I. Let's leave it here, it's going in circles.

Both play a part, with very much disagree on their relative weightings though!

Gynoid

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Both play a part, with very much disagree on their relative weightings though!

Yeah, if I was to give relative weightings I would favour nature more. One gives birth to children, reasonably same combination of genes if same ma and da are parents of same children, and some of your babies will be placid smily lumps of contentment and grow up with that disposition, and some will be wriggling furiously and curiously from the get go, and grow up in that nature. Of course the first type can be encouraged to be out going and the second type can be reined in a bit for their own good, but their natures are their own fundamentally. Don't know why it is, experiences in womb? epigenetics? certain chemical compoundings with gene variations? past life ? Who knows for sure right now. But if you walk around a nursery in a maternity hospital you will see nature writ large - and I mean in behaviour, not just looks - in the cribs. Mystery.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Gynoid wrote: »

Steven Pinker, who I am not overly fond of, wrote what is apparently a good book, against the varieties of the blank slate theories. Blank slate does not mean no nature but it emphasises the role of nurture way over and above it. It is apparently a beloved theory of authoritarians in the past - and I am beginning to think tabula rasa is being favoured by modern Utopians. We shall make the perfect specimens, overcome base gross human nature, remake bodies, minds, etc . Personally I think we will be rather a long time waiting.

Very true.

This is where various postmodern ideologies supplement the "blank slate" utopians — they preach that there is no true self (Lacan), that nothing ever has any essential meaning (Derrida), that everything is historically contingent (Foucault), that gender is fluid and socially constructed (Butler), and that traditional masculine identities such as father, provider, and protector are just masks for the oppression and subjugation of women and minorities (per much modern feminist theory).

Amid this postmodern nihilism, it's no surprise that some young people, especially young men, have been queuing up to hear Peterson speak, many clutching copies of books by Dostoevsky and Jung that he recommends. A growing minority seem to be realizing that the vaunted high texts of postmodernism — Derrida, Lacan, Žižek, Butler, etc. — could be nothing other than obscurantist, nihilistic nonsense. They're discovering that the canonical books of the Western tradition can have meaning, that lives can have a purpose, and that individuality matters more than group identity.

These are not new ideas, of course. Indeed, they are very old ideas — but they have been largely suppressed in the academic humanities over the past 30+ years by an ideology that detests the Western tradition and has devoted itself to eradicating it under the banners of "diversity," "inclusion," and "sensitivity."

Peterson's mantra that if you want to change your life, read great books, has revolutionary power. Again, it's far from a new idea, but it's one that had started to fade into intellectual history until he found a way to tap into it and get people excited again about exploring the history of ideas.

Gynoid

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Very true.

This is where various postmodern ideologies supplement the "blank slate" utopians — they preach that there is no true self (Lacan), that nothing ever has any essential meaning (Derrida), that everything is historically contingent (Foucault), that gender is fluid and socially constructed (Butler), and that traditional masculine identities such as father, provider, and protector are just masks for the oppression and subjugation of women and minorities (per much modern feminist theory).

Amid this postmodern nihilism, it's no surprise that some young people, especially young men, have been queuing up to hear Peterson speak, many clutching copies of books by Dostoevsky and Jung that he recommends. A growing minority seem to be realizing that the vaunted high texts of postmodernism — Derrida, Lacan, Žižek, Butler, etc. — could be nothing other than obscurantist, nihilistic nonsense. They're discovering that the canonical books of the Western tradition can have meaning, that lives can have a purpose, and that individuality matters more than group identity.

These are not new ideas, of course. Indeed, they are very old ideas — but they have been largely suppressed in the academic humanities over the past 30+ years by an ideology that detests the Western tradition and has devoted itself to eradicating it under the banners of "diversity," "inclusion," and "sensitivity."

Peterson's mantra that if you want to change your life, read great books, has revolutionary power. Again, it's far from a new idea, but it's one that had started to fade into intellectual history until he found a way to tap into it and get people excited again about exploring the history of ideas.

I agree with you generally, although I am still not a fan of Peterson. It is kind of odd the way he hit a nerve or tapped the zeitgeist, what made him more popular than others? I sometimes laugh at this Intellectual Dark Web thing that the Weinsteins, especially Eric, seem to have come up with. They paint themselves as incredibly intelligent and subversive, and to be honest I find none of them to be either. It is a bit simplistic, the way they talk, and like wowed frat boys who have taken their first toke. Plus Eric and his fascination with transhumanism, especially with his collaboration with Thiel, I have a sense of wariness and suspicion about them all. I think they kind of made a buddy boy of Peterson too, rather than him being naturally in their milieu. He is too square for them really. All of that crowd do some good and some not so good. I am on the whole wary of them all to be honest.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Gynoid wrote: »

I agree with you generally, although I am still not a fan of Peterson. It is kind of odd the way he hit a nerve or tapped the zeitgeist, what made him more popular than others?

I'd quote W. B. Yeats saying that during anarchy, havoc, and societal breakdown: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity."

People gravitate towards Peterson because, unlike others who (at best) give timid, half-hearted justifications for why we should read writers such as Dostoevsky anymore, he has conviction. And he's evidently thought a lot about the search for meaning — he claims to have spent 3 hours a day for 15 years working on Maps of Meaning. That conviction and erudition come across when he speaks.

I'm not arguing that everyone should be a fan of Peterson, but rather that his worldview — centered in the idea that books and lives have meaning — is an antidote to the nihilistic chaos of postmodernism, and draws in people who are tired of the vacuous mantras of the post-Marxist left.

The Peterson fans are the oddest aspect of all of it..and especially the former atheists going back to mass.. pretty crazy really..

nkl12xtw5goz70

Deleted User wrote: »

The Peterson fans are the oddest aspect of all of it..and especially the former atheists going back to mass.. pretty crazy really..

It doesn't surprise me. People are looking for something beyond the nihilistic postmodern mantras of nothing means anything, there is no essential self, gender is fluid, etc.

Starved of a sense of meaning and purpose, people may start looking for it in sometimes unfortunate places. At least Peterson is telling people to get their lives on track, find a purpose, read great books, etc., which is a fairly benign response. It's actually amazing how threatened the post-Marxist left is by him.

cloudatlas

Junkie destroyed with facts and logic.

Brian?

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

It doesn't surprise me. People are looking for something beyond the nihilistic postmodern mantras of nothing means anything, there is no essential self, gender is fluid, etc.

Starved of a sense of meaning and purpose, people may start looking for it in sometimes unfortunate places. At least Peterson is telling people to get their lives on track, find a purpose, read great books, etc., which is a fairly benign response. It's actually amazing how threatened the post-Marxist left is by him.

People aren't starved if meaning and purpose without religion. Religion creates a fiction, that gives people something to latch onto as if it was real meaning and purpose.

You keep bringing up these "post modern matras" of people being a blank slate as if someone here is arguing that position. I don't think anyone is.

As for Peterson being threatening to the "post Marxist left" . He isn't. He's not threatening to anyone on the left who has 2 brain cells to rub together.

Who are the "post Marxist left" anyway?

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

People aren't starved if meaning and purpose without religion. Religion creates a fiction, that gives people something to latch onto as if it was real meaning and purpose.

I dunno..I was watching Maura and Daithi this morning, and apparently atheists are having masses now..

Gynoid

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I dunno..I was watching Maura and Daithi this morning, and apparently atheists are having masses now..

Yup, humanist ministers give good mass 🙂 or so I hear.

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

I dunno..I was watching Maura and Daithi this morning, and apparently atheists are having masses now..

I'm an atheist and i'd go straight to confession if i watched that shíte!:D

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm an atheist and i'd go straight to confession if i watched that shíte!:D

Don't judge me..