patrick.net

I listened to a debate between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson in which Harris eviscerated Peterson on his epistemological views.
I think Peterson was trying to include things like Jungian archetypes as a level of "truth" - which may be expected from a clinical psychologist but didn't fare well against raw realism.
Many academics should spend an afternoon with their hands in the grease trying to fix a car engine. This would help them to distinguish more clearly subjective and objective reality.

For those who haven't seen Sam Harris.

Here he is on CNN debating Islamist defender Zakara.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/bZtNpQwcKGs

HS, make no mistake, even with all the Jungian mumbo-jumbo, Peterson's framework is firmly rooted in evolutionary biology. Objective reality from that framework says that as your underlying environment changes, all the material knowledge in the world (just the facts, Sam Harris) won't save your bacon. Watch out for the cat-bird-snake, bucko.

anon_3e01a says

HS, make no mistake, even with all the Jungian mumbo-jumbo, Peterson's framework is firmly rooted in evolutionary biology. Objective reality from that framework says that as your underlying environment changes, all the material knowledge in the world (just the facts, Sam Harris) won't save your bacon. Watch out for the cat-bird-snake, bucko.

Well of course it is.
Let's cut it into layers:
1 - The subjective world: this is first-person experience: Everything we are consciously aware of, including perception, sensations like thirst or pain, and feelings like frustration or love.
2 - the physical world, aka the real world
3 - the behavior of the brain seen as a third person experience.

(1) is pretty much the only thing we can be certain of, however, it is not shared between people.
(2) is a subset of (1) in the way we experience it, but it is more tangible than most other subjective facts. In addition, it is shared between people.
(3) the brain-behavior is part of (2) and should normally also describe (1). Our subjective impressions should be explained by the physiology of the brain and neurons activity.

When you talk about evolutionary psychology, you are talking about (3). And normally Jungian archetype can be understood as (3), but also as (1) (first-person vs third-person).

Now Harris is a moral realist, meaning he tries to understand some subjective notions like well-being as a part of the universe. In a way, his claim is that part of (1) is really obviously shared between humans. For example, we all understand that a woman wearing an Islamic tent is probably not optimal well-being. But I think he really approaches it on layer (3), as a neuroscientist. This is tricky because some notions like pain cannot easily be understood on layer (3). On layer (3) you would see pain as a signal, not as feeling the pain.
Whereas Peterson (I think) was trying to make the claim that part of (1) (outside of the real world) can be understood as truth. Now, maybe this can be done, but this is also tricky because it's not shared between people and not very tangible. The way he presented it was in a Darwinian way: truth is anything that doesn't get you killed. This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense and didn't fly with Harris.

What's even better about Trump is the $50,000 my almost-entirely-index-fund investments have made.