His dominance hierarchy hitched onto evolutionary psychology and jungian archetypes (tainting campbell in the process too imo) as justifications, and I can’t abide JP. Systemic flaws are glaring, a primary one an identity as “Normal” that remains unspoken, leaving anyone else as the not normals. It’s an unhealthy system he proposes tied into basic motivational fluff.

His dominance hierarchy hitched [read full article]

 

I don’t write fiction (ok, everything is ultimately fiction in a sense) but I _do_ play piano improvisationalish. I just sit and play. I might start with a musical concept (I don’t know what it’s called) but the longer I play, the further away my playing gets from anything I could have predicted. New themes come out of nowhere, mix with old ones, and new stuff comes out inbetween that gets a life of its own. It’s an amazing sensation. I also get it when writing comments in replies to things like this. I never know what I’m going to write until after I’ve written it. Drawback is: I can’t edit anything. First draft is final product. That’s what keeps me from doing any of this on a more than recreational basis. Some kind of block against going back in time. But the real time outputting of words or notes is exillerating as I’m both there and not there. Flow I think it’s called? I dunno.

I don’t write fiction
[read full article]
 

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?

Brandon, you keep sneakily [read full article]