Like many folks recently, I decided to learn more about Jordan Peterson. Not being eager for self-help or political discussion, I went to his most well-known academic book, Maps of Meaning. Here is Peterson’s summary:
Interesting article. Re this:"when values are encoded in many stories, histories, rituals, etc., a change to any one of them needn’t much change overall behavior. So the genotype can drift until it is near a one-step change to a better phenotype. This allows culture to evolve more incrementally, and avoid local maxima."
But if there's a single change to a better phenotype - i.e. some alteration to one moral story, say, which should improve the behaviour of those who follow it - won't the effect get diluted, ignored or even reverted precisely because of all the other stories, rituals etc. that don't incorporate the same change?
(If I misunderstood, an example of what you mean might help.)
I've spoken to a few 'died in the wool' Pentecostal types (out of curiosity) and they agree that the Bible is a well spring of useful existential, social, moral and valuative information (wheat), but they're just as adamant regarding the chaff. The crucial difference is that Christians are typically hard-balled literalists regarding the Truth of the Bible and Peterson isn't. He bypasses the chaff and claims that the wheat is mired in metaphor, allegory, symbolism and archetype. The burning question I have is : why was it that- historically- the only way to distribute this 'all important information' was to deep fry it in obfuscated abstraction (metaphor, allegory, symbolism, archetype, etc.), but now after millennia (Peterson's) meticulous, psychoanalytic, hermetical exegesis, we are able to imbibe the 'all important advice' sans the chaff- explicitly? As Robin mentions, there's little evidence for any academic support for that idea. He seems to be very much on his own and from the few Pentecostal types I know they don't really agree. The chaff and wheat are equally true for the Christian, but for Peterson the chaff is ultimately a redundant means to the wheat.
"Not being eager for self-help or political discussion, ..."
Ignoring all the relevant cultural context once again, and ending up stunningly ignorant and misdirected. Here's a much more intelligent and diligent treatment; watch this and you will be vastly better informed, and entertained too:
That is what I mean. Also, not for nothing but it's common internet etiquette to not edit your post after people have commented on it, or if you feel it's truly necessary, to put "EDIT:" somewhere to specify the changes made. My comment doesn't make much sense in light of your two minor revisions.
“In sum, Peterson comes across as pompous, self-absorbed, and not very self-aware. But on the one key criteria by which such a book should most be judged, I have to give it to him: he has insight.”
Read Peterson’s primary, primary source—Jung—and you’ll discover he’s pompous, self-absorbed, not very self-aware, and has the ability to parrot insight.
It's not demonizing it. The emphasis is on the word "manifest". The unknown can carry both potential and danger. If you're not prepared for the unknown, if you're not taking the responsibility of respecting these religious truths (mainly that life is suffering and you can alleviate it by the adoption of responsibility), it's more likely to be the latter. That's at least how Peterson explains it.
Robin, I'm confused by your explanation of how formal encoding of values might contribute to a culture getting stuck in a local maximum. You say "Most random changes to such an abstract formal encoding create big changes to behavior" - but isn't it precisely "big changes to behavior" which are needed to get a culture across the valley to another mountain whose peak is potentially higher?.
Going back to your original example (involving the many-to-one mapping from genotype to phenotype), it seems that the reason this reduces stuckness is that it increases the *fraction* of phenotype-changing genotype changes which produce large (i.e. valley-width or bigger) phenotype changes.
Is that right, and if so, are you claiming that the same reasoning applies in the encoded values / cultural behavior setting, even though there are some potentially relevant differences between the settings (e.g. that encoded-value changes rarely actually have zero behavioral impact, and that the encoded values -> cultural behavior mapping seems path dependent unlike the genotype -> phenotype mapping)?
What does this mean: "I know now why rejection of such responsibility ensures that the unknown will manifest a demonic face"? It sounds interesting but I don't get it. A lot of people seem to "demonize" the unknown or unfamiliar, but I don't see how that's related to "rejection of such responsibility".
Interesting article. Re this:"when values are encoded in many stories, histories, rituals, etc., a change to any one of them needn’t much change overall behavior. So the genotype can drift until it is near a one-step change to a better phenotype. This allows culture to evolve more incrementally, and avoid local maxima."
But if there's a single change to a better phenotype - i.e. some alteration to one moral story, say, which should improve the behaviour of those who follow it - won't the effect get diluted, ignored or even reverted precisely because of all the other stories, rituals etc. that don't incorporate the same change?
(If I misunderstood, an example of what you mean might help.)
I've spoken to a few 'died in the wool' Pentecostal types (out of curiosity) and they agree that the Bible is a well spring of useful existential, social, moral and valuative information (wheat), but they're just as adamant regarding the chaff. The crucial difference is that Christians are typically hard-balled literalists regarding the Truth of the Bible and Peterson isn't. He bypasses the chaff and claims that the wheat is mired in metaphor, allegory, symbolism and archetype. The burning question I have is : why was it that- historically- the only way to distribute this 'all important information' was to deep fry it in obfuscated abstraction (metaphor, allegory, symbolism, archetype, etc.), but now after millennia (Peterson's) meticulous, psychoanalytic, hermetical exegesis, we are able to imbibe the 'all important advice' sans the chaff- explicitly? As Robin mentions, there's little evidence for any academic support for that idea. He seems to be very much on his own and from the few Pentecostal types I know they don't really agree. The chaff and wheat are equally true for the Christian, but for Peterson the chaff is ultimately a redundant means to the wheat.
"Not being eager for self-help or political discussion, ..."
Ignoring all the relevant cultural context once again, and ending up stunningly ignorant and misdirected. Here's a much more intelligent and diligent treatment; watch this and you will be vastly better informed, and entertained too:
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Your comment still makes sense to me, and I accept that I don't know how original Peterson is. I'd have to read more on this topic to find that out.
That is what I mean. Also, not for nothing but it's common internet etiquette to not edit your post after people have commented on it, or if you feel it's truly necessary, to put "EDIT:" somewhere to specify the changes made. My comment doesn't make much sense in light of your two minor revisions.
By "parrot insight" do you mean that he says insightful things, but that they are not original to him?
“In sum, Peterson comes across as pompous, self-absorbed, and not very self-aware. But on the one key criteria by which such a book should most be judged, I have to give it to him: he has insight.”
Read Peterson’s primary, primary source—Jung—and you’ll discover he’s pompous, self-absorbed, not very self-aware, and has the ability to parrot insight.
It is about being able to drift among neutral changes until the system reaches a place where a one-step change can create an improvement.
It's not demonizing it. The emphasis is on the word "manifest". The unknown can carry both potential and danger. If you're not prepared for the unknown, if you're not taking the responsibility of respecting these religious truths (mainly that life is suffering and you can alleviate it by the adoption of responsibility), it's more likely to be the latter. That's at least how Peterson explains it.
Robin, I'm confused by your explanation of how formal encoding of values might contribute to a culture getting stuck in a local maximum. You say "Most random changes to such an abstract formal encoding create big changes to behavior" - but isn't it precisely "big changes to behavior" which are needed to get a culture across the valley to another mountain whose peak is potentially higher?.
Going back to your original example (involving the many-to-one mapping from genotype to phenotype), it seems that the reason this reduces stuckness is that it increases the *fraction* of phenotype-changing genotype changes which produce large (i.e. valley-width or bigger) phenotype changes.
Is that right, and if so, are you claiming that the same reasoning applies in the encoded values / cultural behavior setting, even though there are some potentially relevant differences between the settings (e.g. that encoded-value changes rarely actually have zero behavioral impact, and that the encoded values -> cultural behavior mapping seems path dependent unlike the genotype -> phenotype mapping)?
What does this mean: "I know now why rejection of such responsibility ensures that the unknown will manifest a demonic face"? It sounds interesting but I don't get it. A lot of people seem to "demonize" the unknown or unfamiliar, but I don't see how that's related to "rejection of such responsibility".