Brandon, you keep sneakily trying to say that either me or Bret agree with Peterson-you (or you-Peterson). But clearly I do not and it appears neither does Bret.
We don’t have a PM going to make sure we agree with each other.
We don’t watch the same shows or read the same books, I don’t think.
Yet we seem to agree about Peterson-you’s flaws.
On the other hand, you and Zach have Peterson in common. Your agreement isn’t a surprise.
But why do Bret and I agree?
The missing link in Dawkins and Peterson alike is that they talk ABOUT evolutionary forces without actually APPLYING any of it.
I grew up loving power of myth / hero of 1000 faces stuff. It’s helped find common patterns in movies and mythologies and trends in thinking.
But I also had to acknowledge that it suffers from sloppiness.
In the process of, “Underneath it all, we’re all the same”, it neglects that what’s on top actually can make a tremendous difference and can’t be avoided forever.
Yes, and with any study of history, you’ll find that hierarchy is often overrated.
Order is useful for sorting files and sense-making but it’s often delusional.
If you ever have a chance to experience working within any large organization, you’ll find that it is chaos under the fiction of order is the rule, not the exception.
“Thought leaders” (ought to) have a high amount of accountability. They gather followers, who become megaphones for their words and concepts.
I don’t always know which memes were transmitted to me and by whom and when.
Who am I a megaphone for?
I like when people guess. It allows me to correct them.
Concepts are bundles of interconnected metaphors. Metaphors, I believe, ultimately have a physical (DNA expression) AND experiential basis.
One would need a society-less human to compare as we’re attempting to talk ‘about’ the very pond we fish are swimming in.
But even feral children usually turn out to have been raised by humans at SOME point up to the age of 2, allowing a lot of these experiential concept structures to form.
Yet perhaps some do seem to have a purely biological basis, as studies of mammals brings in.
Yet, perhaps this is the natural consequence of groupings, in which case one would see bacterial social behaviors that look familiar to us as humans. [we do].
Of course, a lot of this could be anthropomorphizing everything.
All in all, that’s what makes this stuff fun.