Sociopath Community

Legga said: 

Alice said:

> He's proven he knows very little about post-modernism and critical theory, though I do enjoy his biblical series.

I think he knows a lot about critical theory. I think he doesn't care about it. Unless it benefits him. If you're right, and nobody listens to you, is it better than if you're wrong, but everyone listens to you? I think he understands how human bias works and how to convince people, on good grounds or otherwise, and how to hide relevant opposing facts.

I see what you mean.

I was thinking in terms of him not having a strong grasp on the actual writers and those they’ve influenced. He throws post-modernism, critical theory, and Marxism into a basket and then pulls out an anecdote to explain contemporary manifestations of leftism – in this sense he is being knowingly disingenuous, isn’t careful with his language, or stopped reading after he generated his narrative. I agree with the fundamental issues he has but the manifestations of contemporary leftism have very little to do with the post-modernist thinkers he calls detestable.  

I think you’re right though.

He seems to utilize critical theory whether he knows it or not, every one of his lectures could be used as a case study of Horkheimer’s definition. Thank you, you've opened up a gate way of new thoughts in my head.

Most people will give you 60 seconds to make an argument and tune out after 2 minutes. If the 60 first seconds is sound, the rest of the 5 hours can be utter shit but the masses will believe you anyway. They don't give a shit if you're right, they just want to see their enemies crushed and ridiculed

There's no shortage of "Peterson destroys lefty" compilations on youtube, that's for sure.

I find it ironic that Peterson often states that the the followers of the 'post-modern neo-marxists' have merely given in to an oversimplified set of ideas used to explain everything while he tempts his followers into doing the same thing. 

Turncoat said: 

 

> When "crying"... he seems to try to sound like Bert from Sesame Street, but his eyes seem to go red pretty quickly.

He does sound a bit like Bert lol. I wonder if, before he became famous, anyone (his students?) saw him pull this. Thanks for the link. 

There was this interview with a priest where the priest called him a sinner or something, and then later he cried and everyone was like "aww Jordy's crying, he can't be bad, can he?" Fake or not, he gets positive results with it.

We're progressing towards a truly post-modern age. The reason why crying is a strength for him is over how it is conventionally a weakness. 

I totally get what you're saying about the crying but we're well beyond post-modernism at this point.

We are neck deep in hypermodernism and have been since the 90's. I just had to point that out because all my thoughts pertaining to cultural theory and philosophy are orbiting this idea and I can't seem to dislodge myself from it.  

AliceInWonderland said: 

I find it ironic that Peterson often states that the the followers of the 'post-modern neo-marxists' have merely given in to an oversimplified set of ideas used to explain everything while he tempts his followers into doing same thing. 

What's also ironic is that he regularly bashes 'leftists' for not being objective and evidence-based enough while he himself has apparently cured his "lifelong depression, anxiety, gastric reflux (and associated snoring), inability to wake up in the mornings, psoriasis, gingivitis, floaters in his right eye, numbness on the sides of his legs, problems with mood regulation" by adopting a strict carnivore diet consisting of only "beef and salt and water. That’s it. And I never cheat. Ever. Not even a little bit". (article)

He seems to have neglected to mention he's on benzos too...

TC said:

His are special in that his eyes actually turn red. If one were to assume he's faking it, how's he doing it? Does he cut onions in between takes or something?

What has me as a knee jerk reaction not believe his crying is over how, despite his eyes reddening, he doesn't seem like he's demonstrating a breaking point. I've seen a surprising amount of fake crying in my lifetime, and he fits much of the criteria whether it's real or not.

He does seem to fit the bill to me as well. There are people that can cry on command, I think that's the trick.

His debates with other people are always blatantly playing more towards the crowd than the conclusion, but he even got Bill Maher to struggle when he was invited onto his show. He ought to be respected for his ability to sway people... as people who were otherwise not swayed.

He has talent, but the nature of that talent comes from some level of breaking the rules of debate.

Yeah, I don't think he cares about the rules of debate. He is very talented at getting people to follow him. Most scholars tend to be dry, so people don't care. He's managed to bring the intellectual discussion to the laypeople audience. As far as conventional debate goes, though, he was destroyed by Matt Dillahunty.

Ted Talks have me optimistically convinced somewhat otherwise.

While the masses are definitely louder over baseline opinions, the "silent majority" is another matter.

How many people do you figure are elitist in their beliefs of themselves from not challenging others openly on the internet (or real life if they're overly polite)? Based on my own experiences anyway I'd say that that demographic has to be over 50%.

Which ted talk(s)?

AliceInWonderland said: 

I see what you mean.

I was thinking in terms of him not having a strong grasp on the actual writers and those they’ve influenced. He throws post-modernism, critical theory, and Marxism into a basket and then pulls out an anecdote to explain contemporary manifestations of leftism – in this sense he is being knowingly disingenuous, isn’t careful with his language, or stopped reading after he generated his narrative. I agree with the fundamental issues he has but the manifestations of contemporary leftism have very little to do with the post-modernist thinkers he calls detestable.  

I think you’re right though.

He seems to utilize critical theory whether he knows it or not, every one of his lectures could be used as a case study of Horkheimer’s definition. Thank you, you've opened up a gate way of new thoughts in my head.

I expect you do the same. I agree.

I find it ironic that Peterson often states that the the followers of the 'post-modern neo-marxists' have merely given in to an oversimplified set of ideas used to explain everything while he tempts his followers into doing same thing. 

It is pretty ironic, and I agree. It's quacking. Quacking is basically to mock your enemy for mindlessly reciting their doctrine. But when it's your ally doing it and it's your doctrine, it's a positive word.

I totally get what you're saying about the crying but we're well beyond post-modernism at this point.

We are neck deep in hypermodernism and have been since the 90's. I just had to point that out because all my thoughts pertaining to cultural theory and philosophy are orbiting this idea and I can't seem to dislodge myself from it.  

What is hypermodernism?

Legga said: 

 

AliceInWonderland said: 

I see what you mean.

I was thinking in terms of him not having a strong grasp on the actual writers and those they’ve influenced. He throws post-modernism, critical theory, and Marxism into a basket and then pulls out an anecdote to explain contemporary manifestations of leftism – in this sense he is being knowingly disingenuous, isn’t careful with his language, or stopped reading after he generated his narrative. I agree with the fundamental issues he has but the manifestations of contemporary leftism have very little to do with the post-modernist thinkers he calls detestable.  

I think you’re right though.

He seems to utilize critical theory whether he knows it or not, every one of his lectures could be used as a case study of Horkheimer’s definition. Thank you, you've opened up a gate way of new thoughts in my head.

I expect you do the same. I agree.

Unfortunately I'm afraid I fail in so far as I have no prescription nor a desire to liberate us all from the human condition. If you mean knowingly disingenuous, not careful with language, and stopped reading after deriving a satisfactory narrative then I'd say I struggle with language.

I find it ironic that Peterson often states that the the followers of the 'post-modern neo-marxists' have merely given in to an oversimplified set of ideas used to explain everything while he tempts his followers into doing same thing. 

It is pretty ironic, and I agree. It's quacking. Quacking is basically to mock your enemy for mindlessly reciting their doctrine. But when it's your ally doing it and it's your doctrine, it's a positive word.

Peterson: It's logos

I totally get what you're saying about the crying but we're well beyond post-modernism at this point.

We are neck deep in hypermodernism and have been since the 90's. I just had to point that out because all my thoughts pertaining to cultural theory and philosophy are orbiting this idea and I can't seem to dislodge myself from it.  

What is hypermodernism?

 That is a big question and given my current obsession and lack of time (Peach and I are about to go enjoy some night life) I think it'd be more appropriate to start a thread. I will given I've been wanting to get some outsider perspective on the topic

Fundamentally it is the new age whose spatial and temporal form was transformed by the internet once it was made public. Usually these things are also marked and influenced by an event, in this case that event was 9/11. 

Its thought of in a lot of different ways but I tend to think of it from an angle of Goetonean science (especially Spenglers twist on it) and Baudrillard's Integral Reality. 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Turncoat said: 

> When "crying"... he seems to try to sound like Bert from Sesame Street, but his eyes seem to go red pretty quickly.

He does sound a bit like Bert lol. I wonder if, before he became famous, anyone (his students?) saw him pull this. Thanks for the link. 

There was this interview with a priest where the priest called him a sinner or something, and then later he cried and everyone was like "aww Jordy's crying, he can't be bad, can he?" Fake or not, he gets positive results with it.

We're progressing towards a truly post-modern age. The reason why crying is a strength for him is over how it is conventionally a weakness. 

I totally get what you're saying about the crying but we're well beyond post-modernism at this point.

That's impossible, once post-modern becomes modern then it's not post modernism anymore. The entire point of it is that it's meant to appeal to an exaggerated idea of where later eyes might be, serving as a (usually wacky) commentary on the direction of current trends. 

Post-modernism itself is expressed through eras, like most movements. The current model is focused on emotions through their utility, and is often expressed through the uncanny valley of machine-like sentience or "psychopathy"; The cold yet on point imitation that serves to make a commentary on it's expression as a whole. 

Turncoat said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Turncoat said: 

> When "crying"... he seems to try to sound like Bert from Sesame Street, but his eyes seem to go red pretty quickly.

He does sound a bit like Bert lol. I wonder if, before he became famous, anyone (his students?) saw him pull this. Thanks for the link. 

There was this interview with a priest where the priest called him a sinner or something, and then later he cried and everyone was like "aww Jordy's crying, he can't be bad, can he?" Fake or not, he gets positive results with it.

We're progressing towards a truly post-modern age. The reason why crying is a strength for him is over how it is conventionally a weakness. 

I totally get what you're saying about the crying but we're well beyond post-modernism at this point.

That's impossible, once post-modern becomes modern then it's not post modernism anymore. The entire point of it is that it's meant to appeal to an exaggerated idea of where later eyes might be, serving as a (usually wacky) commentary on the direction of current trends. 

It would certainly be impossible if postmodernism was anything that could be said to come after modernism, but postmodernism is not that general and never was. It’s just a continuation in mass of an older French tradition that began during the French revolution when a dismantling of religious, traditional, and political structure was traded for secularism – this is very explicit in the arts with Baudelaire and Monet who do away with classical signifiers (which is ironic given Baudelaire is often credited with coining the term ‘modernity’). As such, in function, there’s really nothing post-modern (after-modern) about postmodern thought. What is post-modern is the mass cultural movement, a new none-modern form which arises as a reaction to World War Two, that utilizes the French tradition of dismantling signifiers. Grand meta-narratives are viewed as untrustworthy and so they must be dismantled and done away with.

As with moving past modernism all that is required to move past postmodernism is a new dominating forms and functions. Interesting enough Peterson and the rest of the so-called “Intellectual Dark-Web” are such a movement as they are a reactionary form to postmodernism that utilizes neo-logo centric idealism as a means to construct a meta-narrative (or a map of meaning as Peterson calls it). There’s the post-postmodern movement storytelling which instead of cutting the viewer or reader off from the narrative it hopes to reestablish that connection. Examples of such stories are The Yiddish Policemen Union by Chabon and Michel Gondry’s Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Both begin with trauma which leads to a dismantling of history that slowly intensifies to near uncontrollable speed only to be rectified by reconnecting with that history. If postmodernism is characterized by dismantling then the new modernity – hypermodernity, supermodernity, post-postmodernity, whatever you wish to call it – is characterized by intensification and reconnection.

Post-modernism itself is expressed through eras, like most movements. The current model is focused on emotions through their utility, and is often expressed through the uncanny valley of machine-like sentience or "psychopathy"; The cold yet on point imitation that serves to make a commentary on it's expression as a whole. 

 I agree that ‘psychopathy’ is the natural anthropological type of postmodernity which is dominated by the globalization of mass capital. In culture this is explicitly expressed in films and books about the soulless businessman or emotionless serial killer where both are mass produces, one being an assembly line of capital and the other being an assembly line of bodies. One of the primary anthropological types of the new modernity is the dangerous loner who’s a manifestation of digital capital.  In contrast to the psychopath who masses his body count over a series of serial killings the dangerous loner masses his killings all at once as he manifests his own form of viral digital capital.

It's meta-narratives all the way up, and all the way down. Whether it be embalming in a pyramid, or being buried with a terracotta army. Sacrificing a lamb, or sacrificing a human. These things have gone on even before there was writing to document them. The Neanderthals had similar habits too. Staunch atheists do the same with science. There's never been a group of people found that didn't have a preexisting form of spirituality. That gives a lot of insight into how the human mind operates.

There are lots of trends in thought. Catholic. Pre-modern. Postmodern. Renaissance or Reformation. Secular. Evangelical, Mormon, Buddhist, Sikh, Shia, stoic, cynic, Quaker, Protestant. Atheist, agnostic, determinist, free-will believers. All collected in the need to recognize some sort of higher-order structure. Did we ever reach a conclusion? Rhetorical no.

The postmodernists contributed their own structured form of skepticism, and in the same stroke they tried to establish another structure. Now I know what areas of the brain I could lesion to turn this indignant skepticism off, (ventromedial prefontal cortex is a good start)...but then what would people do? I think humans just have a difficult time reconciling themselves as agents of their genes. But we can construct the mental equivalent of Babylon at the same time.

This is the first time I feel stupid reading the posts on this forum.