Originally posted by tooblue
View Post
Which is why I'm inclined to believe that he is taken out of context a lot, because people have a very difficult time taking statistically valid evidence that is collected from large populations and avoiding the pitfall of applying it to individual cases. Social psychologists spend a lot of time working in high levels of abstraction. I believe it to be the responsibility of the critic to understand the frame of reference and accepted vocabulary of the work being critiqued. It is illogical to suggest that an expert in any field should adapt language that is used with great precision and understanding in their field to that of the audience. The audience can not be known, and language that might work for a portion of the audience will not work for another part. The work would have to be presented differently to each distinct audience member only after spending time learning about that specific individual. That Peterson has been as effective and popular as he has been only suggests he does this better than most.
A journalist taking that approach I find unethical, which is why I hardly could stand to read through that article.
Peterson has gone through his understanding of what happens to these types of people that take their revenge on the world and this happens over years. First, resentment, they feel they have been dealt an unfair hand and they feel jealously towards those that are succeeding at that which they experience failure. Second disgust, resentment changes to targeted feelings towards those successful individuals, or collection of individuals that represent a class of people who are contaminated. Third contempt, that the world suffers because of this class of people. Fourth, a generalizing that any existence in which people of the representative class are allowed to succeed is fatally flawed and deserves destruction. At which point some of them take action against existence itself, it no longer is targeted at those perceived to have slighted them.
Comment