Jordan Peterson's Religious Apologetic Arguments

[angrysoba]

That's from his less then sterling success at Jubilee:

The cheerful thumbnail image of him is such a hilarious mismatch with his actual scowling, screwed up eyes expression where he testily demands the meaning of words he wants to debate.

 

[Chanakya]

Yeah, still haven't gotten around to watching the debates-20 vid. Should be interesting. Or at least entertaining.

 

[acbytesla]

...Interesting! And you may be right, you know.
About charlatans believing their own BS most times. (Not always, though. Definitely not always. Certainly there are some that know their shtick is BS, and still they flog it. So maybe the intersecting circles thing.)

I don't believe that. I think most definitely don't. They know the game they are playing. But once they start playing that game, it is very difficult for them to quit. Especially when their living relies on it.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Ah yes, I do remember, now you mention it, reading somewhere about that all-meat diet of his. Also he abuses, or used to abuse, some particular drugs as well. (Was it here I came across it? Maybe this very thread, read earlier and now forgotten? Whatever.)

In any case, that's an interesting observation you make: that conmen end up fooling themselves with their BS. Not that I've thought closely about this, but I guess I would, like I said in a previous post of mine in this thread, regard --- would have regarded --- those two categories as separate: the BS'ers and conmen and charlatans, on one hand, the ones that knowingly, deliberately mislead their marks; and on the other hand, those that mislead others because they themselves are victims of bullshyttery, like priests and preachers that believe in their BS. Of course, as far as their actual message, and as far as the (baleful) effect they have on the world, that's a distinction without a difference: but still, there is indeed that distinction, is what I think/thought. You're saying it's more like intersecting Venn circles, or maybe even one circle the subset of the other. ...Interesting! And you may be right, you know. About charlatans believing their own BS most times. (Not always, though. Definitely not always. Certainly there are some that know their shtick is BS, and still they flog it. So maybe the intersecting circles thing.)

No it doesn't happen all the time that you come to believe your own bovine excrement, but it is a huge risk; especially if you're trying to run a con.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

The cheerful thumbnail image of him is such a hilarious mismatch with his actual scowling, screwed up eyes expression where he testily demands the meaning of words he wants to debate.

Any time anybody even slightly challenges his bs or starts picking at his illogic he explodes into a raging ball of hate.

 

[Chanakya]

I don't believe that. I think most definitely don't. They know the game they are playing. But once they start playing that game, it is very difficult for them to quit. Especially when their living relies on it.

Agreed 100% with that last. I'm sure there are those who, either eventually, else from the get-go, are aware of their own charlatanry, but end up not being able to get off, given money, social standing, everything.

Which is the greater proportion: BS-peddlers that know they're selling BS, and knowingly fleece people? Or BS-peddlers that have bought into their BS? You seem sure it's the former. Me, ...well, I really don't know! I mean, how would I know, short of a proper poll, and then how reliable might such a poll be? ...But doesn't really matter, I guess, as long as we know BS is BS.

----------

Then I suppose there's those that buy into their own crap halfway, right?

"Saint" Theresa came up earlier in this thread. Someone like her, clearly she didn't embrace the whole deal, certainly she didn't herself embrace "the passion of the Christ" by refusing the best treatment, when it was her time, and suffering along with the objects of her "charity". So clearly she didn't believe that part of it. On the other hand, she did spend her life, voluntarily, amid squalor and poverty and sickness, and that can't have been pleasant. And what money she channeled away, she channeled onto the Church, even Hitchens doesn't accuse her of personally profiting. So then clearly she did believe the Christian/papal/RCC nonsense.

...Then again, what does it matter. Unfortunately people can't be prosecuted for peddling BS, as long as the BS is not financial but religious. So I guess the whys and wherefores of it probably don't much matter, the mens rea of it.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

"Saint" Theresa came up earlier in this thread. Someone like her, clearly she didn't embrace the whole deal, certainly she didn't herself embrace "the passion of the Christ" by refusing the best treatment, when it was her time, and suffering along with the objects of her "charity". So clearly she didn't believe that part of it. On the other hand, she did spend her life, voluntarily, amid squalor and poverty and sickness, and that can't have been pleasant. And what money she channeled away, she channeled onto the Church, even Hitchens doesn't accuse her of personally profiting. So then clearly she did believe the Christian/papal/RCC nonsense.
...snip...

What is dreadful about her more than I think even the harm she caused was that she didn't believe, that was the reason she wanted her papers destroyed when she died, she lost her faith so everything she did that caused harm wasn't from her faith.

 

[Chanakya]

What is dreadful about her more than I think even the harm she caused was that she didn't believe, that was the reason she wanted her papers destroyed when she died, she lost her faith so everything she did that caused harm wasn't from her faith.

Didn't know that! She had a loss of faith thing, did she? And carried on nevertheless? Agreed, that makes it much worse.

And I guess what @acbytesla talks about, charlatan not being able to stop with their shtick given the loss of ...not money per se in her case, not personal money, but certainly standing in society, her exceptional fame and regard, all that, she couldn't stop doing her thing and still keep it all.

 

[Chanakya]

No it doesn't happen all the time that you come to believe your own bovine excrement, but it is a huge risk; especially if you're trying to run a con.

Oh, "come to believe"? That's interesting! Are you suggesting that there could be many charlatans who start out on a straight-out con, knowingly duping folks, but as time goes come to themselves start believing the con they're peddling to their marks? Not that we can know this for sure, either way, but that at least seems a bit unlikely to me.

Any time anybody even slightly challenges his bs or starts picking at his illogic he explodes into a raging ball of hate.

Agreed, that's one sure sign of a charlatan. ...That is, I don't know if Peterson does that, and I'll take your word for it he does. But absolutely, it has indeed been my experience, IRL I mean, that charlatans, when it looks like their lies and/or illogic are questioned too closely or actually exposed, then they do end up doing that.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Oh, "come to believe"? That's interesting! Are you suggesting that there could be many charlatans who start out on a straight-out con, knowingly duping folks, but as time goes come to themselves start believing the con they're peddling to their marks? Not that we can know this for sure, either way, but that at least seems a bit unlikely to me.



Agreed, that's one sure sign of a charlatan. ...That is, I don't know if Peterson does that, and I'll take your word for it he does. But absolutely, it has indeed been my experience, IRL I mean, that charlatans, when it looks like their lies and/or illogic are questioned too closely or actually exposed, then they do end up doing that.

I would say that it is a risk with scams, especially ones you've been running for a long time. You repeat the thought stoppers for long enough that they can stop you thinking. Plus a lot of conartistry is persuading the mark that you are sincere, that you too believe. Holding up that kind of a mask can very easily see that mask becoming the reality.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Oh, "come to believe"? That's interesting! Are you suggesting that there could be many charlatans who start out on a straight-out con, knowingly duping folks, but as time goes come to themselves start believing the con they're peddling to their marks? Not that we can know this for sure, either way, but that at least seems a bit unlikely to me.

It's more like method acting, immersing themselves in the part 24/7. It's real enough to be convincing, but acting nonetheless.

 

[Chanakya]

I would say that it is a risk with scams, especially ones you've been running for a long time. You repeat the thought stoppers for long enough that they can stop you thinking. Plus a lot of conartistry is persuading the mark that you are sincere, that you too believe. Holding up that kind of a mask can very easily see that mask becoming the reality.

Uhhh, if you say so. Afraid I remain, heh, skeptical. When a guy (or gal) is pulling a con themselves, and is fully aware of the mechanics of how exactly they're doing it, and how exactly it's ending up befooling their marks: well then, if anything that should end up having the opposite effect, I should have thought. ...But that's just me reasoning in a vacuum, so if you say you've actually seen such, then I'm perfectly fine with going by your anecdotal say-so, and taking it that that's so, in some cases at any rate.

It's more like method acting, immersing themselves in the part 24/7. It's real enough to be convincing, but acting nonetheless.

Yep, that makes more sense. Sure, it might be that, for those charlatans that are completely invested in it, and like to carry on with it full time. So that breaking character is the exception part, and leaps up to attention if ever made public.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Uhhh, if you say so. Afraid I remain, heh, skeptical. When a guy (or gal) is pulling a con themselves, and is fully aware of the mechanics of how exactly they're doing it, and how exactly it's ending up befooling their marks: well then, if anything that should end up having the opposite effect, I should have thought. ...But that's just me reasoning in a vacuum, so if you say you've actually seen such, then I'm perfectly fine with going by your anecdotal say-so, and taking it that that's so, in some cases at any rate.


Yep, that makes more sense. Sure, it might be that, for those charlatans that are completely invested in it, and like to carry on with it full time. So that breaking character is the exception part, and leaps up to attention if ever made public.

There are videos of people attempting no-touch knockouts on nonbelievers. Some of them have even participated in full-contact organized fights. Someone who has taken a no-touch knockout class is, presumably, in a better position to know whether or not it's real than someone who has not, yet they continually fall for it.

 

[Chanakya]

There are videos of people attempting no-touch knockouts on nonbelievers. Some of them have even participated in full-contact organized fights. Someone who has taken a no-touch knockout class is, presumably, in a better position to know whether or not it's real than someone who has not, yet they continually fall for it.

Yep, I've seen those! (Not just no-touch, but also all kinds of "bullshido". There's a thread on it here.)

Agreed, those certainly would be examples of what @Gulliver Foyle was talking about. Those idiots clearly had bought into their own crazy woo, else they wouldn't have gone on to invite that kind of public humiliation.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

There are videos of people attempting no-touch knockouts on nonbelievers. Some of them have even participated in full-contact organized fights. Someone who has taken a no-touch knockout class is, presumably, in a better position to know whether or not it's real than someone who has not, yet they continually fall for it.

I've got my tongue against the roof of my mouth, and my big toe flexed just so. Bring it on!