Was he right?

>>9447897
Care to formulate a complete sentence?

>>9447897
There is a difference between listening to lectures on youtube and attending college.

>>9447900
You first

>>9447897
I think the real difference that lies between watching lectures on youtube and actually attending a course is the evaluation of your knowledge.

Any pseud can listen to a course and think they understand everything. But only through class participation,assignments,tests can you be tested upon how much you've actually established off those lectures.

>>9447914
die

>>9447917
>But only through class participation,assignments,tests can you be tested upon how much you've actually established off those lectures.

lol...not at all. I think all the valuable, real learning that takes place in unis are done by spergs in libraries or going to office hours to chat up the prof.

Just audit courses and spend a lot of time in libraries.

The slow collapse of post-secondary humanities education will become more and more undeniable.

>>9447917
Isn't that more of a test of "can you read between the lines of what the professor is saying during lecture and formulate a thesis that supports his entire career."

> implying that's not how university works

>>9447925
I was talking about evaluation not about how you learn.

If you have some better/more efficient method to test how competent thousands of students are then please enlighten us.

>>9447939
Take it how you will but I'm sure a uni professor is more qualified/competent than any of the pseuds on lit.

You can learn STEM the same way, so it makes no sense.

>>9447951
I don't know, Its much easier to get STEM objectively wrong than Humanities desu.

>>9447959
Thats what makes STEM actually easier to learn independently. You can assess yourself whether you're getting things wrong.

People studying humanities on their own end up as Lolbertarians and level seven Atheists because they have no one to direct them

>>9447968
>People studying humanities on their own end up as Lolbertarians and level seven Atheists because they have no one to direct them

Well that hit close to home.

>>9447907

The difference being the professors in the MIT lecture series are better than the ones I had in college. They will also respond to you if it's timely enough and you write polite and academic sounding queries. It isn't all that different from the 500 person lectures I attended at UNI, where the only interaction I had with the professor was via email or because I physically camped in front of his door to ambush him.

>>9447968
STEMfags get some ridiculous notion that they are capable of speaking on any subject, same with humanitiesfags

It is disgusting, they need to stay in their lanes. Listening to pseuds like Tyson and Nye talk shit about philosophy is about as enlightening as Ken Hamm lecturing on natural history

>>9447943
I still think uni evaluations are poor evaluations of learned knowledge. They do evaluate sort of well for the purposes of "did you fucking generate backup arguments for my entire career's thesis, or not, you little prick?" and for the purposes of evaluating how useful you will be as a worker.

> implying that's not how university works

> If you have some better/more efficient method to test how competent thousands of students are then please enlighten us.

Yeah, anything but the "attendence is 5%!" and "class participation is 5%." I'm sorry, but pr

>>9447948
Eh...Some profs are obviously dumb and worthless but there are others who do relatively well and you encounter their work and take their courses and wonder what the fuck they're on about. Not because it's difficult or obscure, but because it's fucking nothing. You begin to realize that some profs just got ahead finding a niche topic that no one had written about. They're not smart, they just found a way to never really leave campus.

>>9447968
huh, you know I didn't think about it that way.

>>9447897
nah, accreditation means something still (even if its value is being diminished every year)

>>9447991
accreditation is the only thing, there's little point outside accreditation and this is becoming more and more clear

and i dont think it has always been like this, it's getting worse and partly the students and partly the universities' fault. no doubt incoming students have shortened attention spans and (at least older) professors are noticing

File: IMG_0640.jpg (68KB, 380x411px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 380x411px

I'm probably going to kill myself by thirty so my degree won't matter anyway :\

Youtube doesn't give me a fancy piece of paper so I can get a job.

>>9448007
Why would it matter otherwise?

>>9448014
Neither did my degree

>>9448019
should have picked a better major/school, ect.

>>9448020
Eh I was 17 and too stupid to know, thems the breaks

>>9448018
kek

>>9447900
>It's another episode where lit doesn't understand what makes a sentence complete

File: IMG_0697.jpg (37KB, 599x354px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 599x354px

>>9448018
I'd manage to channel the bitterness I have about my failure to produce worthwhile literature into a middling bourgeoisie job and maybe trick some haggard 32 year old woman I don't love into marrying me :)

>>9447897
Peterson would be out of a job, if people weren't paying for non-stem.

>>9447991
if they can solve the accredidation problem w/r/t online courses that would be huge, would love to educate myself online instead of paying thousands to learn stuff i could read in a book

>>9447897
I only have to pay ~4k a year after scholarships and aid.

Also, no he's not right. You can't talk to the lecturing prof through your screen. Anybody who actually believes that they can get an education equal to uni is a Third Eye Open Enlightened Stoner Head ASS.

File: IMG_0681.jpg (224KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1024x768px

>>9448038
This is actually my deepest fear. This is what I use to justify my daily suicidal ideation.

>>9448081
those kids are gonna be such fucked up adults

>>9448028
What is with these constant reruns you'd think another season would be up by now

>>9447897
You don't pay for the education you pay for the name on the degree.

>>9447918
You first

>>9447943

In our econ classes we did a signal theory analysis of the students and found that grades were not a reliable indicator of future success, but rather that difficulty of classes attempted was a better indicator. This makes sense when you realize a lot of the top students are just taking easy classes for the GPA, the ones who are in really challenging courses might not do as well, but in the end they are better prepared and have more initiative.

I would also argue that grade anxiety is actually preventing talented students from fully realizing their potential.

Peterson is exactly the type of thinker I'd expect someone without any serious study to be drawn towards

>>9448163
You know the problem I have with comments that criticize Peterson like this are the same people who masturbate to Derrida.

>>9447917
This. You need feedback. Simply listening does do a great deal to open you up to new ideas and think new things but without writing essays and doing assignments and reading the relevant literature you'll never be educated. There will always be a place for the humanities. the sooner they stop flooding universities for muh jobs! And it becomes a place of higher education again the better

>>9448203
>muh French Jew boogeyman

Grow the fuck up

>>9448263
>When you hit the nerve just right

>>9448268
Nah look I get it, you choose to listen to who makes you feel good regardless of the propositional validity of their theory. Have fun with that buddy I'll be busy doing serious work

>>9448289
>propositional validity of their theory
>Derrida
>serious work
>Continental philosophy
Stop, I'm already dying over here.

>>9448289
Have you read Maps of Meaning?

>>9448314
Like Zizek most people like >>9448289 haven't read any of their published works their entire opinion of them is solely from youtube.

>>9447897
Sure, if you're able to keep yourself on a consistent schedule of learning about a single topic for months on end until you feel you've suitably mastered it without the punishment/reward cycle that comes with being graded in academia. But unless you're willing to read 50-200 pages per day per topic with no letting up without any hope of reward or any threat of punishment, you're not going to be able to get jack shit done.

>>9448307
Peterson is firmly in the Continental tradition as a Jungian you fucking mong
This is the type of illteracy I'm referring to

>>9448334
Peterson is a psychologist senpai.

>>9448307
>muh ontological Jungian archetypal stories
>fuck continentals
not even a fan of continentals, but wew lad, get off youtube, read a book

>>9448334
He's hardly a philosopher.

>>9447968
Here's the problem, a so-called properly educated anon in the humanities won't be able to convincingly dispel the mistakes of libertarians and atheists.

>>9448338
>Responding to the person who thinks you can't do a Psychological reading of Jung/Freud.
Stop.

>>9448334
He's a scientist, dipshit.

>>9448314
>>9448326
I don't waste time seriously engaging with mediocre e-celebrities. Peterson is nothing but a reader of Jung so given familiarity with him makes reading Peterson obsolete.

>>9448336
>psychologist

That only further lowers my opinion of the field not raise my opinion of him

>>9448344
lmao

>>9448343
>>9448344
ITT cult members. The mad man has done it. Molyneux-wave cultism.

>>9448347
>>9448352
I hope you are tolling and not actually this ass mad.

>>9448347
>Peterson is nothing but a reader of Jung
Peterson is a client-centered behaviorist you fucking retard.

>>9448352
>having a philosophy based on real, falsifiable arguments is cult-like
>worshipping Marxist dogma and metaphysics isn't

Ok

>>9448347

>>Mediocre e-celebrity
>>8000 citations in Google Scholar

>>9448365
Pyschology is a meme field. A clumsy frankenstein of haphazard inductive models based on victorian tier positivist philosophy plagued with inner inconsistency or predictive value.
The fact that a Jungian can still masquerade as a scientist in Anglo countries just shows what a joke it remains.

>>9448374
How the fuck is an "archtype" falsifiable?

>>9448374
le scary culture mark. le jews secretly killed 100 million christians with weather magic. le inevitability of war.

>>9448374
... why would you assume I'm a Marxist mate? You've been watching too many Peterson v blue haired girl heavyweight phil debates.

His philosophy is predicated upon Jungian archetypes as this sort of ontological argument for religious ethics. He is a Christian apologist (probably atheist funnily enough) at best. He is certainly continental, if even deserving of such a category. Take what you will from him, just tone it down on the cultism young spergpai.

>>9448388
Tell me all about how you're qualified to dismiss an entire field of enquiry.

>>9448401
I have University accreditation in studying Philosophy of Science and have a working brain. Who the fuck are you?

>>9448409
I'll be patiently waiting for that ground-breaking paper of yours that lets every psychologist know that their entire field is bullshit.

>>9448409
Jungian story-tellers and descriptivists, sure, but you simply cannot dismiss all psychology as pseudo-science. you're wrong about its predictive capabilities too.

File: 48.gif (20KB, 381x463px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 381x463px

>>9448416
I don't need to, people are seeing it for themselves

>>9448374
Ideology in its purest form, ladies and gentlemen

>>9448425
That doesn't mean shit senpai.

>>9448388
If the various archetypes Peterson has utizilized in his work hadn't appeared in someway in all great cultures, then the theory of archetypes would have been disproven.

>>9448440
Sure did to those poor schmucks

>>9448444
Jesus.

>>9448442
>in someway in all GREAT cultures

Ooh yeah, thats some hard falsfiability there

>>9448442
kinda like god and any other objects or sets I conjure to be non-falsifiable

>>9448425
>tfw switched from political science major to english

fucked no matter what boys

>>9447917
Came here to say this. Pseuds only think universities are for lectures

File: IMG_0174.jpg (54KB, 720x678px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 720x678px

>>9448450
>being so dedicated to remaining a nu-male that you disregard the empirically proved existence of archetypes

It's okay to disagree with your professors and to use some critical thinking every now and then, anon.

>this thread

wtf I love Popper now

>>9448469
I don't just think that archtypes have never been empiricially proved, which is laughable to believe. I don't even think they are a legitimate concept we can speak of phenomenologically any more than pixies or sorcery. Its not a legitimately existing thing in any sense, its a backwards misreading of language

>>9448469
hah, your bait was good up until now.

>>9448480
>human's most basic mode of cognition is social
>they have inborn social categories
>this is unreasonable

>>9448469
>empirically proved existence of archetypes
>empirically proved
>empirically

I bet you think adjectives are the types of things that can lend themselves to empirical proof as well. Dear god anon, it's quite embarassing

>>9448480
I don't know the proof OP is talking about, but you know I could believe that archetypes are a type of pattern recognition, now that could been empirically proven I guess

>>9448493
>human's most basic mode of cognition is social
you can't just claim 'most basic' without attempting to prove or clarify what you said. it's not self-evident and words don't mean what you want them to mean.
>they have inborn social categories
also, not proven. even if you're a pure determinist and think that human cognition pre-determines social behaviour, you'd still have to make a huge leap in saying that defining all possible outcomes of human-behaviour lends itself to categorisation in a way that is locally relevant for human societies.
>this is unreasonable
yes, it is.

perfectly reasonable to believe the machinations of one's cognition determine social behaviour. also, reasonable to believe that these behaviours can be categorised based on social functions. this gets you adjectives, traits and other psych categories. To claim these are inborn/innate/archetypal in any way is a leap of faith and ultimately not falsifiable. Sophistry does go a long way though.

>>9447897
cuz the reputation from colleges that was built on hardworking and accomplished men before they let women in and college became a de facto required camp

>>9448538
They're not simply pattern recognition however, in the Jungian sense they're extremely essentialist and discretely existing not contingently produced. Otherwise they would not be archtypes, they would simply be concepts like any other.

>>9448493
>>human's most basic mode of cognition is social
Thats an absurd and patently false proposition, social cognition is of the highest and complex kind of cognition dependent on a huge series of baser forms to emerge.

>they have inborn social categories
[citation needed]
Categories are more than mere instinctual relationships to phenomena, they are discrete and unified. In a sense linguistic. Which is a grand claim when we have had extremely brief role of language involved in our evolutionary history.
I see absolutely no reason to assume that we are born with such categories and not merely instinctual relationships to scents, touch and perceptions which is an entirely different matter and is of yet a pre-cognitive.

>>9448581
>>9448616
https://jordanbpeterson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Peterson-JB-Maps-of-Meaning-Routledge-1999.pdf

Read Chapter 2.3 and judge for yourself

>>9448666
you should have done this from the start.

this convo should lead you to a few realisations: you either need to see where you personally stand in relation to peterson's proposition in light of the very reasonable objections we've raised, or you revisit his book and see whether you might have misrepresented his views or simply done a sloppy synthesis of his conclusions.

>>9448698
No need to be patronizing

>>9448409
Itt: we justify our life choices to possible bots badly

>>9447897
Lectures

>Spend 2 hours listening when you could learn the same shit reading in 20 minutes

>>9448666
If you've read it explain its relevance yourself nimrod, I'm not here to do your homework

>>9448739
play it on double speed, you can make it through a semester of chipmunk university in a weekend

>>9448753
he did, so he either failed, or worse, peterson is trying to dethrone molyneux for youtube meme phil king.

>>9447925
st. john's college

>>9448769
How many times am I gonna have to say that Peterson isn't a philosopher?

And this isn't some Molyneux. Come back when you have over 8,000 citations on Google Scholar.

>>9448964
>unironic appeal to authority

Citations in a meme field are meme citations

>>9447897
You're all acting like lectures are the main source of knowledge at a uni, when the lectures are always just supplementary material to the texts you're set to read, and the research you do.

>>9449012
Molyneux is illegitimate because he isn't an authority, but Peterson isn't legitimate because he is an authority.

Right then.

How does it feel to have your head so far up your ass? How does it feel handing out samples of your meme epistemology like a fucking food court worker?

People like Kermit here becoming popular public intellectuals make me feel like the US is pregnant with another Great Awakening.

No self respecting individual can be a christian.

>>9449033
The comparison to Molyneux was on the similarities between their followers from the undue and uncritical reverence they bestow from their middlebrow engagement. Not on his own personal status.

>>9449045
Peterson is a full-blown heretic.

>>9449047
Fair enough

But be careful about comparing an intellectual who is a meme to a meme intellectual.

>>9447900
Was he right? is a complete sentence

>>9448339
If they actually take learning seriously, they will, if they study those arguments. Too many uni educated people aren't serious about it, and just want to get the degree and get out.

File: 1485980065738.png (42KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 350x350px

>>9447968
there's nothing wrong with libertarianism.

File: pepe3.png (15KB, 469x331px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 469x331px

>>9447968
>"please, teach me how to think for myself!"

File: 1493456116080.png (1MB, 1132x1024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1132x1024px

>>9448038
If they want to make war look bad, then they shouldn't make the robots look so cool.

>>9448124
no such thing as a non-fucked up adult.

File: manoflogic.png (67KB, 500x310px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 500x310px

>>9449229
Hard as it may be to believe, there are some people in this world who don't harbor psychological baggage. They are not artists.

>>9449185
>>9449190
Uh oh the frogposters have arrived to dish out hard arguments

>>9449258
how normie can someone be that they don't have baggage?

File: actioncamus4.jpg (146KB, 500x687px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 500x687px

>>9449276
He would be the over-Chad.

File: melville.jpg (11KB, 170x255px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 170x255px

>>9449265
Some people don't need to be "directed" to make unique art and in many cases are better for that lack of institutional direction.

>>9449258
>there are some people in this world who don't harbor psychological baggage.
any examples spring to mind?

>>9448124
Yeah. Maybe Don't even get exposed to minorites, other cultures, modern sexual education and popular culture.
Probably going to grow up as racist maladjusted prudes.
The government should take them away.

>>9449324
Anecdotal examples abound. Have you never met a Chad?

>>9449314
Yeah look Buddy don't worry, no one is saying you're not comparable to Melville. Its just that in general being part of a system of institutions that have engaged in developing thinkers for millennia is a more sure fire route than relying on spontaneous findings on youtube and forums.
Maybe not for Melville and yourself just in general its a plus

>>9449347
I'm not comparing myself to Melville, he's just a well-known example.

There is no "sure fire" route to being a good writer. Techniques may be explicable, but talent isn't.

>>9448038
Implying Gundam's reflections on war aren't more interesting and complex than simply "war is bad"

>>9449360
>There is no "sure fire" route to being a good writer.

No but that's not what I said, simply that some routes are clearly on a general level more efficient than others. Some significantly so

>>9449386
I disagree, particularly in the case of the humanities. You're assuming it's "efficient" to teach in a certain way because this mode has been refined over a period of thousands of years. In the case of creative arts, creativity itself is ostensibly being honed, and since a person's level of creativity directly proceeds from uniqueness, any sort of generalized pedagogical method is going to be at some points stifling. This is why home-schooled children always outdo their publicly educated peers of comparable intelligence.

>>9449412
Yeah but that requires people to have a firm foundation otherwise. Homeschooled children out perform others on average because they're being thought by educated passionate and attentive parents with a lot of free time. Not your average parents.
A person like Melville excelled as an autodidact because he had an incredibly driven and discerning mind. All well and good if that's you but you want to have some confidence there to take that gamble.

The proposition here is not that the humanities will always be the most optimum route towards being a good thinker with the far simpler one that given an average 17 year old who wishes to be a good thinker he would most likely reach that point through formal study and not end up thinking Stephen King and Sam Harris are what he should be spending his time engaged with.

Whatever you think is best for yourself is your perogative but I find you tremendously lack a sight of how significant formal education has been in the development of so many writers.

>>9448038

real writers are writing, not whining on 4chan about their failure to write. Do it or don't no one gives a shit and it's not for you to determine if it's worthwhile.

>>9449360

lol you probably have no talent...lol Melville as an example...tfw you actually think that the exception is the norm.

>>9449446

Sam Harris is great.

>>9449446
All of your contentions hinge on a definition of "average." No person is "average," an average is a mathematical idea that describes qualities and quantities, not people. The "average" seventeen year old would be much more than what I take to be your idea of "average" if he hadn't been treated as such from the outset, and been exposed to public, generalized education.

Most writers who went through that system will point to one formative professor who essentially "introduced them to themselves." This narrative is so common it's a cliche. At the point one "finds oneself," one no longer needs guidance. Rather than "higher" education being necessary for this "self-realization," I think it's the opposite, that the proliferation of education is a product of the intense interdependence of post-industrial society, and that such education at length is only necessary because people can glide through their formative years without being actually formed: without facing hardship, with all of their physical needs provided for. It is my contention that public education engenders dependence: it teaches kids that they need to be taught.

That's not to say that this state is somehow "wrong" contrasting it with how things used to be, it simply presents a new series of problems, those being spiritual lacks as opposed to physical lacks.

>>9449531

shut the fuck up...you are the worst kind of wanker.

File: leopold bloom.png (30KB, 280x341px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 280x341px

>>9449531
>All of your contentions hinge on a definition of "average."

No it doesn't, thats the fucking point of averages you mong

>>9449564
>>9449580
Not an argument.

>>9447897
Credentials obviously. No one goes to Uni because they love to learn. This isn't ancient Greece