Why Are People Falling for Fake Intellectualism
Why are people falling for pseudo-intellectualism and fake intellectuals, including Jordan Peterson and many others? David discusses, including ideas from socioeconomics and psychology
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html
Why do you think these people are so popular?
▶️ DTube
▶️ IPFS
So who determines what is fake? You? And how do you define intellectualism?
Unfortunately I could not view the whole video - one of the issues with DTube streaming I hope they'll fix.
Exactly. In this video he tries to speak like some authority and then he has coined new concept like Intellectual dark web. What does that even mean? Videos like this say nothing. It's very surface layer and fluff. 11 minutes of nonsense no core arguments to discuss. What he is doing is using Black and White thinking himself to try to label a whole group under some name he created. It's very strange. It's all over the place as well. No clear ideas being brought up. It's like it was designed to confuse you even more.
He didn't coin the phrase intellectual dark web. He's responding to someone that wrote an opinion piece for the NY Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html
So much fluff and pretentiousness. You can't even respond to it. You need core arguments to state so you can argue back. That is written in a way to try to win an argument by bore the other side.
The video was to dive into the question of why people fall for fake intellectualism, did he not raise these questions and try to give an answer?
If you thought the video was to dismiss each pseudo intellectual then I can understand your confusion.
The idea of put label on humans as pseudo intellectual is just an escape people use to ignore everything they say. It's an oversimplification to state that all that a human say should be ignored. This is living life with a Black and White mindset.
Would be interesting to hear @nonameslefttouse opinion on this. This NYT article reminds me about that other guy on Steemit that wrote 1000 word fluff Steemit comment responses haha.
So can you name even one idea that you would be willing to defend?
I think it's completely fair that if someone is pretending that old, easily dismissable ideas are intellectually provocative then it's correct to call them a pseudo intellectual.
Where does David say that if these people actually started real discourse he wouldn't change his opinion?
David didn't write the article, which I'm not sure you realize is on your side.
I would like to apologize for the downvote from Schrosct. I did not intend for anyone else's comments to take a hit. I hope steemit can continue to foster the debate that it has already.
Have a great day and God bless.
What debate are you fostering? I see inane comments being upvoted by you.
I pinned/mirrored both the source and 480p copies to my IPFS, there were other nodes that had it as well, try watching again.
Cuz PSEUDO And INTELLECTUAL are two terms people do not know the meaning of.
It's meant to confuse you even more. Instead of making stuff very clear. It's also trying to change the external world and thinking the intellect is some magical tool. The intellect is good for survival and it can divide stuff. But it can't know life.
That's what I said people do not understand these terms at all.
So basically everyone who was on the Joe Rogan podcast? I happen to like listening to Sam, Jordan, Ben, Eric and the like. I honestly don't care about their personal achievements all I'm looking for is an interesting discourse that will stimulate ideas.
These guys are isolated to a small part of the internet while the rest of the mainstream internet is looking at memes and Instagram and that to me is shameful than any points you make about listening to these so-called intellectuals or pseudo's in your opinion
You're also not addressing why these people are pseudo's your argument is just trying to paint all of these people with a blanket statement
Exactly great comment. It's like he try to feed his followers some universal truth instead of listening to everyone and create interesting discussions. Trying to simplify too much.
Indeed, I clicked on the video because of the title and the thumbnail with Jordon and I'm expecting a rebuttal that I can use to decide if his argument is valid. All I got out of the video was I'm an authority on what is intellectual discussion and I decided what they say holds no value.
While he's entitled to his opinion and I respect that he makes it sound like we hanf on every word these people say. I don't accept everything Jordon and the rest say hence my interest in this video I like to get all opinions so I can formulate my own
Yes. Take this from Jordan. Over 1 hour and 40 mins talking very deeply about life stuff. He is trying to figure things out. To try to attack a person like this becomes ridiculous.
So which idea did you think needed deeper discussion? He probably already has a video about it.
Then do you understand that the video is trying to explain that you're being tricked?
Whats with all the flagging? There was no fraud, plagerism or hate speach in my comments
Disagreement with rewards. I feel that @prlndra is upvoting easily dismissable things which I can't even tell if they watched the entire video based on their content.
I would like to apologize for the downvote from Schrosct. I did not intend for anyone else's comments to take a hit. I hope steemit can continue to foster the debate that is has already.
Have a great day and God bless.
I would like to apologize for the upvotes that @prlndra is spreading. He is using @suesa's delegation to upvote ignorance and anti-intellectualism.
I'm mostly ashamed of @suesa's decision to give him power in the first place.
Are you kidding me right now? I gave him the delegation because he's active in the chat and has the potential to be a positive influence on the platform. I don't give a flying fuck about anyone's political opinion, as long as it's not "burn all gays" or "gas all jews" or "don't vaccinate your children" (although I tend to ignore the last one on steemit, I'm just so, so tired), especially because I wouldn't be able to stop arguing with people on steemit. Not many share my political views on here but that's okay.
What you're doing right now is more than childish. You weren't even willing to explain what's going on, just threw a temper tantrum, dropped this post in my DMs and then left all chat channels.
Go on, keep flagging me. I won't remove my delegation from prlndra just because you feel like being a tyrant today. I'm sick of defending you in front of others when you turn around and do this any chance you get.
I really can't believe you right now.
I have enough going on with my thesis, I don't need a grown man acting out his frustrations stressing me out.
p.s.
While @prlndra didn't say to burn all the gays, he did show a huge anti LBGT stance in the chat. Wow, much positive influence.
@suesa the biggest hypocrite on steem everybody!
Not flagging you to stop the delegation,
Flagging you because you're the worst fraud here.
Worse than a flat-earther.
Too bad your thesis isn't like your posts where it's all about who you know, huh?
Final word,
You didn't ask, you said 'bb schrosct' when I said I was leaving.
I'm not bluffing, closing my account, so don't waste time fending off your personal army that you also pretend doesn't exist whenever it's convenient for you, unfortunately it takes months and I don't want to leave anything behind so it has to be flags from here on out so I don't curate.
Your success and ability to abuse the system here informs me that steem will never make it to the mainstream.
Remember when you muted me on steem chat because this chap was being a shit, and I didn't like it? I left, upvoted his worst hate, and didn't go trash-talking about you or steem chat.
Maybe the chat moderation could use a tweak around the kind of lashing out schrosct was doing. Hope all your other interactions on here are better, @suesa
I muted you because you were extremely homophobic.
But I'm not.
It doesn't matter though, because whatever nuance I was trying to describe (I think it was the difference between definitions of 'gay') I was accused of being homophobic.
When given the tools to be just like facebook, you decided to be just like facebook. It's almost like comedy.
Why don't you have Jordan Peterson on your show for an honest debate, and then if you're right you should be able to run circles around his so called 'pseudo-intellectualism'.
Oh wait...I already know your resposne: "I don't want to legitimize his views by giving him a platform."
I have had him on already.
Can you link to that video? I would love to watch it.
Here it is.
I stand corrected. :P
https://davidpakman.com/interviews/jordan-peterson/
And now that I've actually watched the whole thing, I'm quite happy to eat my own words and say that I think it was a fair and objective interview.
I have to finish watching the entire interview but it does seem to be a very good interview.
Watch the Dillahunty Peterson debate/conversation to get a sense of why anybody with half a brain wouldn't bother to have Peterson on other than to laugh at him. Then again, Pakman has made a business of interviewing dumbos, weirdos and insane people too, so the "I don't want to legitimize his views by giving him a platform" is not the issue.
The fact that Pakman has in fact already had Peterson on his show notwithstanding, I don't think the debate with Dillahunty was the knock-out victory that his fans would claim. Yes, Peterson was weak in a spot or two (i.e. the mushroom/psychedelic thing, or insisting that atheists are crypto-theists), but on the other hand he was coming at things with a whole other depth of knowledge that Dillahunty himself may have not been prepared to process on the spot.
The debate pitted a single-note activist (Dillahunty) against a multi-faceted academic/clinical psychologist (Peterson) - and so I think the end result was destined to be muddled at best. No, it may not have been Peterson's strongest performance, but Dillahunty said nothing to sway me towards atheism.
I don't see how this debate provides any example of Peterson being a "pseudo-intellectual".
I was actually very disappointed Matt held back so much! Peterson virtually didn't answer any question, it was all long-winded word-salads that said nothing or said nonsense (like the crypto-theist thing you mention). That's why I pointed to that conversation, it really highlighted (to me at least) what Peterson is.
Everyone knows Atheism will create a selfish society that is pretty obvious. Compared to have some higher vision or something that motivates you. Some deeper sacred stuff. It becomes all about pleasure with atheism.
Then why is it that most of the societies with highest atheism rates have strongest safety nets and welfare programs?
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199644650.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199644650-e-010
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/religious-belief-and-societal-health/
Please do not just link to other places. Your links have more characters than your text almost. Then it becomes no point even making a comment. Make some argument. Currently the atheist countries in the Western World is being replaced by third world immigration so it's a total destruction of the western worlds history. All thanks to atheism.
Holding back? At one point Dillahunty concedes that there is no way science can detect nor measure the spiritual realm nor spiritual entities, but yet he keeps trying to put the onus on people of faith to scientifically prove (or point to) the existence of God (or a god).
Pakman made no clear attack against Jordan while he talked to him. But in this video it's clear that he seems to attack him on a much deeper level. So clearly something is going on.
It also seems like many that doesn't understand Jordan can't grasp more complex concepts and read between the lines. It's like they need a word or instruction for literally everything. Black and White people in thinking. You need to have a deeper openness to understand a genius like Jordan. He is like a modern version of Aristotle. Can create hours and hours of material. A true intellectual will love it.
People want to react to a genius like Jordan while he already has 20 new amazing ideas. It's reactive energy to old stuff that is already outdated. With every new expressive thought a better one will come.
Can you please make some core points what you think instead of just link a person to an almost 2 hour conversation? That's like linking someone to Google. Also it's too much Black and White thinking. Jordan has 100s of hours of material and by your comment you make it seem like every word he say is pointless? That is clearly Black and White thinking.
I would like to apologize for the downvote from Schrosct. I did not intend for anyone else's comments to take a hit. I hope steemit can continue to foster the debate that it has already.
Have a great day and God bless.
I sent him some SBD
Thank you.
@prlndra this is spam at this point.
I figured 3 was borderline and it was some of the larger comment threads so thats why I didn't leave any more.
@prlndra here's the thread :D
I must thank you for linking me to this. You have actually reaffirmed my political faith in the platform. This thread shows there are people on both sides of the asile who respect open discourse. And have made similar points to mine about how @davidpakman, in this case at least. Isn't making an argument other than essentially grouping together people who disagree with him politically. Once I have some more time later I hope to engage in some proper political debate with these fine people. Have a good one mate and God bless!
So which point do you disagree with?
I guarantee that any one that you come up with I can provide a video where @davidpakman has already gone into great length on his opinion of the topic.
For example, if you hear that the "Men's Rights" movement is pseudo intellectualism and feel that this is an ad hominem, then I have bad news for you...
In the old world we had 1 person that spoke to the people. That world is quickly fading away. The new world will have deeper longer discussions. Like what you are seeing Joerogan doing with 3 hours argument discussions. This is real discusssion not something that is short.
@prlndra you're also upvoting a lot of garbage in here. :|
Important note that the video isn't to dismiss whatever bad idea you think was attacked but to wonder why you fell for it in the first place.
This video doesn't make an argument. Just as @prlndra is saying. Now multiple people have detected it. This speech in this video is as I said earlier walking all over the place trying to confuse you. You have others in this thread that also has been confused.
If it confuses you, it's not @davidpakman's fault.
You can clearly see that there are more than me. At the moment in this thread it's 3 vs. you. He is not making any real argument in this video.
Yeah, because 3 people can't be wrong.
@davidpakman, i like your clean and easy understand able voice, which is recorded in high quality mic, i think.
thanks very much!
Ignorance is measured according to the level of belief on any subject.
I invite visit my post https://steemit.com/art/@jadnven/there-is-a-difference-between-being-grateful-and-be-conformist
Largely, because they lack a proper education to recognize a truly intellectual argument, but also because of this:
"For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear."
II Timothy 4:3
You are aware of that the modern world is pretty complex and need leaders?
I realize the modern world is already run by small-minded egotists who think they are so much smarter than everyone else, most of whom have ZERO morality or common sense.
That's oversimplification. The world is a complex place you need patience with people.
I'm working on it with you right now.
People just haven't got a manual to how the human machine works.
Jordan Peterson is made especially for political stories. His reactionary politics and reactionary talents as public speakers merge into being highly suited to YouTube and the media, where conservative video destroys the weak liberals routinely become viral. Peterson's complaint about political identity and political correctness is a matter of conservative standards.
It's clear that you haven't looked deep enough if you only seen the viral video. You are aware of that he has hour long videos discussing dominance hierarchies and other important cool stuff? He is laying out arguments in excellent hour longer form. And all you can take away is some random viral video someone recorded? Please.
Well if I'll say... Fake people really seems to be real people at some point but with your ideas and education I feel you can surpass it... Should I say illiteracy is the cause.?
The answer on title question. Because they dress all serious, talk with people ( in tough language) unlike actual intellectualists who just speak to them, they also offer something new to many subjects and possibly have similiar beliefs to many people. Of course the fake intellectuals might be in politics, science, whereever. An example is "alternative medicine" or pseudo science which is some horseshit sucked from a finger and the proofs of it working are only anegdotic. Just look at some self filling water bottles, cone solar panels etc. Stuff like that gets views, upvotes from people that don't even question the thing.
It's mostly the deranged anti-SJW crowd that allowed their growth.