avatarJoe Luca

Free AI web copilot to create summaries, insights and extended knowledge, download it at here

7237

Abstract

ing the media world in a fairly unique and trusting way for months now. Most public figures in his position have people advising them on media strategy, what to say, and what not to say — how to frame things so you are not misquoted. Which interviews to take on and which to refuse. Moreover, probably not to allow two solid days behind the scenes to someone who you think may have an agenda.</p><p id="2ef6">As far as I can tell, he doesn’t have this and has embraced and is fully living out his own dictum — “speak the truth and let the pieces fall where they may”.</p><p id="21b3">So far speaking the truth has worked out well for him — he was lucky that Channel 4 News put up the Cathy Newman interview unedited — a decision I’m sure that they quickly regretted. <b>This New York Times piece feels different </b>— that it will solidify impressions of him on either side.</p><p id="6328"><b>“Bad faith changes everything”</b></p><p id="cf22">As Eric Weinstein, Bret’s brother, and another member of the unofficial ‘intellectual dark web’ said — “bad faith changes everything”. It’s possible to have any kind of discussion with people you disagree with so long as they are approaching it in good faith — as soon as they are not, they’re just looking to boost their position, look good in front of others or advance their career within their tribe — as Peterson alleged Cathy Newman was — then true exchange of ideas is impossible.</p><p id="c6f9">I would argue that this journalist is indeed acting in bad faith. Some of the misrepresentations cannot be put down to simple misunderstanding.</p><p id="7c74">The piece of the interview that has been seized upon is this:</p><blockquote id="f129"><p>“Recently, a young man named Alek Minassian drove through Toronto trying to kill people with his van. Ten were killed, and he has been charged with first-degree murder for their deaths, and with attempted murder for 16 people who were injured. Mr. Minassian declared himself to be part of a misogynist group whose members call themselves incels. The term is short for “involuntary celibates,” though the group has evolved into a male supremacist movement made up of people — some celibate, some not — who believe that women should be treated as sexual objects with few rights. Some believe in forced “sexual redistribution,” in which a governing body would intervene in women’s lives to force them into sexual relationships.</p></blockquote><blockquote id="8111"><p>Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.</p></blockquote><blockquote id="005a"><p>“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”</p></blockquote><blockquote id="f00b"><p>Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.”</p></blockquote><p id="4fb7">The framing of it makes it sound like he’s advocating for some kind of “government/state enforced” monogamy — which is malicious. He — as anyone who has been listening to his lectures will tell you — is making a more subtle point.</p><p id="924a">That monogamy is an evolved trait to stabilise societies — it’s “enforced” only as a social rule. Many societies in the past have had polygamy or other situations where a small number of men had access to many women (as do many animal societies), and that proved to be unstable and a bad long term solution to social harmony.</p><p id="7529">So in this argument, the reason that monogamy evolves (and is socially enforced) is to avoid the kind of situation where you end up with too many bitter young men wanting to tear things down. Which — whether you agree with his reading or not — seems to be happening.</p><p id="c544">And he also argues — that one of the consequences of the sexual revolution of the 60s is that it has loosened sexual behaviour. When that happens, and there are less social and physiological downsides (pregnancy is not inevitable) — and more sex is being had — the spoils go disproportionately to the most attractive men.</p><p id="7716">He is arguing that there are deeper reasons for the morality that we evolved over our history, and that there are consequences to the kinds of lifestyle experiments that we saw start to accelerate in the 1960s. This is what the essence of Peterson’s message is about.</p><p id="fb0d">You can disagree with Peterson, but many people are recognising that this fits their experience of the world — hence his popularity. That the increasingly boundary-less world we’ve created is not working and we need a reintegration of these traditional values.</p><p id="ad84"><b>Ideological fixation</b></p><p id="89ce">Personally I agree with Peterson that much of our culture and media is in the grip of an ideology that styles itself as open, inclusive and tolerant, but actually has a shadow side of intolerance towards those that don’t share their values.</p> <figure id="3404"> <div> <div> <img class="ratio" src="http://placehold.it/16x9"> <iframe class="" src="https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FaMcjxSThD54%3Fstart%3D1511%26feature%3Doembed%26start%3D1511&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DaMcjxSThD54&amp;image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FaMcjxSThD54%2Fhqdefault.jpg&amp;key=a19fcc184b9711e1b4764040d3dc5c07&amp;type=text%2Fhtml&amp;schema=youtube" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="480" width="854"> </div> </div> </figure></iframe></div></div></figure><p id="731c">One of the sacred cows in this is the belief that the only reason that men and women don’t have equal representation in many industries and top jobs is because of discrimination, not differing choices. This was famously the subject of the clash with Cathy Newman.</p><p id="fc16">If these activists (and the liberal left generally) has to accept that there are measurable differences in temperament, values and life choices made by men and women, and that some of them are likely tied to biology and evolutionary history — then the entire edifice of this ‘gender ideology’ movement starts to shake. We would realise that it would be irrational to expect 50/50 representation in many jobs, for example.</p><p id="8022">And realise that this is not just a social movement — this ideological framing — it’s a big industry. There are charities, organisations and groups that are funded on the basis of this that have huge impact on the media conversation, and business practice.</p><p id="e742">So left-wingers who are usually concerned about the impact of money on ideology and political decisions from corporate interests, might wish to look at the fact that these are major financial interests as well. It is not possible for this entire industry to look at the data accurately.</p><p id="b543">I would also frame it in this way that might resonate

Options

with left-wing thinkers. Why are you using capitalist metrics like pay to decide on whether women have achieved equality? Isn’t that just another version of the ‘patriarchy’ controlling your minds? How has “the man” persuaded you that equal pay is the right metric to look for equal respect and value?</p><p id="b245">What makes women actually fulfilled and gives genuine meaning in life? Is it the same as for men? I doubt it, and I personally know many women who made that realisation too late in life to easily have a balanced life that included children.</p><p id="5cc1">But anything that argues against leftist ideology is attacked and smeared. For example the infamous ‘Google memo’ was a case in point, being described as an ‘anti-diversity screed’ throughout the media despite the author, James Damore, specifically making suggestions that would increase the representation of women in tech. This article from the Atlantic — from a writer who doesn’t agree with Damore’s conclusions — gives good context to its misrepresentation: “To me, the Google memo is an outlier — I cannot remember the last time so many outlets and observers mischaracterized so many aspects of a text everyone possessed.”</p><p id="3999">Liberalism as an ideology, with those inside and outside the tribe. Those outside the tribe, like Peterson — deserve scorn, derision, and even misrepresentation.</p><p id="11cc">Another hard to explain mischaracterisation, if the journalist had any familiarity with Peterson’s work is this:</p><blockquote id="33b8"><p>“Mr. Peterson illustrates his arguments with copious references to ancient myths — bringing up stories of witches, biblical allegories and ancient traditions. I ask why these old stories should guide us today.</p></blockquote><blockquote id="f195"><p>“It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp. Yeah,” he says. “Why?”</p></blockquote><blockquote id="69ec"><p>It’s a hard one.</p></blockquote><blockquote id="0ac8"><p>“Right. That’s right. You don’t know. It’s because those things hang together at a very deep level. Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.”</p></blockquote><blockquote id="fc08"><p>But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.</p></blockquote><blockquote id="e8f8"><p>“Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, ‘Well, there’s no such thing as witches.’ Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn’t what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can’t help but fall into these categories. There’s no escape from them.”</p></blockquote><p id="3287">He is deliberately framed here as an old crank, an eccentric who believes in dragons and witches. Yet throughout his lectures he has made clear he is talking psychologically, archetypally and mythologically.</p><p id="67f0">In this view they exist in our mythology in a very real way as representations of psychological realities, for example that the dragon is the mythological representation of the ‘unknown’. Throughout our history if you ventured out into the unknown you could die — but there was no other way to discover new information or new rewards.</p><p id="cc2a">So the dragon is a composite predator of all the animals that used to prey on humans — a cat/snake/bird — and of course in mythology dragons have gold (or virginal women in captivity). The deep psychological story is that by confronting the unknown, you can achieve riches. He’s made that abundantly clear in every lecture.</p><p id="2105">What is becoming ever clearer (and again is something Peterson points out) — the death spiral of the print media is speeding up polarisation — in even the most reputable organisations such as the New York Times start to produce clickbait such as the Jordan Peterson article.</p><p id="4e32">Perhaps the New York Times have decided to take a leaf out of the book of the 4chan culture, and provocateurs like Milo Yiannopolous who made whole careers out of provoking the left into overreaction. In this case — the NYT have placed this article behind a paywall (I’m told) — so to read it, outraged Peterson fans will have to subscribe to the paper.</p><p id="255f">Then to unsubscribe — I know because I just checked — you cannot unsubscribe online, you have to call them. This seems at least unethical.</p><p id="5aaf">The most dangerous part of this whole enterprise is that Peterson has now become pretty much the singular focus of the ramping up of the culture wars — the lightning rod, if you will. Articles like this add hugely to the polarisation he warns about.</p><p id="46ed">On one side you have literally tens of thousands of people (mainly, but not all men) who have had their lives changed, and many claiming actually saved, by listening to Jordan Peterson’s words. On the other side you have a mix of hard core ideological opponents to him, and a vast middle ground who don’t know him well — but are almost certainly thinking that there is no smoke without fire.</p><p id="6c75">He has argued frequently that we are in an increasingly polarised world and that individual actions can have serious consequences, if we don’t act with integrity, or we sacrifice our morality and conscience in any way.</p><p id="c074">This journalist spent two days with Peterson in his house, she seemingly has some familiarity with his work, and yet chooses to characterise him in this way.</p><p id="9c1a">The treatment of Jordan Peterson is speeding up the irrelevance of the mainstream media at an increasing rate. Too many people are aware of his work and who he is and what he believes for the hit pieces to stick.</p><p id="3463">In the language of the internet subculture — the treatment of Jordan Peterson by the mainstream media is showing up their ideology, and Red Pilling an entire generation.</p> <figure id="41f6"> <div> <div> <img class="ratio" src="http://placehold.it/16x9"> <iframe class="" src="https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FYDxl1stMTCU%3Fstart%3D193%26feature%3Doembed%26start%3D193&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DYDxl1stMTCU&amp;image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FYDxl1stMTCU%2Fhqdefault.jpg&amp;key=a19fcc184b9711e1b4764040d3dc5c07&amp;type=text%2Fhtml&amp;schema=youtube" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="480" width="854"> </div> </div> </figure></iframe></div></div></figure><p id="8453">For more documentaries and interviews, check out the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFQ6Gptuq-sLflbJ4YY3Umw?view_as=subscriber">Rebel Wisdom Youtube channel</a>.</p><p id="0b51">My personal website: <a href="http://davidfuller.tv/">http://davidfuller.tv/</a></p><p id="a4b2">And please consider <a href="https://www.patreon.com/rebelwisdom">supporting us on Patreon</a>.</p></article></body>

Quotations | Self-expression | Change

5 Einstein Quotes That Could Change Your Life . . .

. . .but probably won’t.

Pixabay image — by ParentRap

A quote is an excerpt from a person’s life.

A snapshot of the inner workings of their mind translated into a few words, that depict how, when, and why a person lives life the way they do.

And we, as the recipient of these bits of wisdom, often consume them like nourishment: a steak and potato, say, or a Big Mac. Thus, allowing them to trickle down into our collective consciousness where they’ll break down into something useful and perhaps help us become a little smarter, a little better at living life.

But it just doesn’t work that way. It’s never been that easy and probably never will.

Take this one for example.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

I think this is brilliant. And it should be because Mr. Einstein was brilliant. But he was also humble and practical and a firm believer, as far as I can discern, that shit happens, and the more we avoid making stupid mistakes, then the less shit is likely to happen to us.

But how do we apply this in real terms?

From another perspective, if we walk into a revolving door with a suitcase trailing behind us and create a godawful wreck with us at the bottom of the heap, how do we use this experience to prevent it from happening again?

Do we stop using revolving doors?

Do we stop using a suitcase on wheels and carry a satchel instead?

Do we endeavor only to exit buildings but not enter them?

The problem most humans have in doing something that becomes a problem, later on, is that we didn’t know this would be the outcome when we started.

Some external factor triggers a complex and mostly unconscious series of decisions that end with us turning left instead of right or saying I Do when I Don’t would have been a much wiser decision.

But after years of processing countless bits of information and becoming comfortable inside our own heads, we still make mistakes.

Why would a series of quotes change the whole paradigm and suddenly imbue all of us with instant knowledge ready to use?

Is this one immediately ready for us?

“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”

So, scoring a perfect 1600 on the SATs is not necessarily a true sign of intelligence?

Or, perhaps giving the commencement speech at your college graduation as valedictorian, is not always a given that your intelligence will take you a long way in life.

Maybe you have a great memory. Maybe you mastered the art of test-taking but when playing Charades, and you need to exercise your imagination to win, you always stumble on giving clues for titles like The Lone Ranger or To Kill a Mockingbird.

Pixabay image by kinkate

Maybe what Einstein is actually saying is that smart gets things done and built, that is, for the most part, already there to be built. Smart will build you a bridge over a small river. Smart will build you a skyscraper in the middle of New York City like others already there.

But will smart get you past the sights of children getting Polio, all the way to a vaccine?

Will smart get the two warring sides to a table and actually give peace a chance?

We all like getting something that clicks and makes us feel good about ourselves and life in general.

Look before you leap — a practical datum if there ever was one. But beyond peering over the edge of the abyss, how does one deconstruct this little darling and incorporate it into our lives in a meaningful and lasting way?

Now this one will surely metabolize instantly and become food for thought, right?

“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”

First off, I think we can safely assume that the term ‘great spirits’ is not referring to our ancestors or Gods that we pray to, but individuals with a great capacity to understand and feel and envision a changing reality, that goes beyond the norm.

But what does it actually mean and how do we take it off the page, slip it neatly into our lives and start using it, like a screwdriver or an iPad?

Would we know it, if we, the reader of the quote, were one of the mediocre minds Einstein is referring to and not the great spirit? Would that be a disappointment?

Maybe, Albert is relating to all of us, the challenges he faced in his life. The rejection he experienced because he was not the right type to be offering up such ideas. Or that he didn’t have the right background or education or that he was a Jew and that erected obstacles, just because.

Quotes are entertaining and to some degree informative, but mostly about what’s happening within the quoter’s life.

Can quotes simply transfer their wisdom and perspective to the reader automatically or do we, in an effort to gain insights quickly, assume that they do and move on to the next one?

“I believe in standardizing automobiles. I do not believe in standardizing human beings.”

Pixabay — by ileukers

So, having the directional signal lever on the same side of the steering wheel in all automobiles is a good thing — lest we forget and click on the wiper blades instead when turning.

But requiring all human beings to come off the assembly line looking and acting alike would be a bad thing.

But does this even make sense?

People are not cars, so why worry about it. We all look and act differently. We all speak different languages, over 6000 of them across the globe. Is there any real danger of people becoming standardized, like say, American Sign Language or the Off-side rule in English soccer?

Or is Einstein, taking a close look at his life, not inside his head, but around the world in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s leading up to World War II and the atom bomb?

How true industrialization made the replication of anything easy and got everyone into the mode that perhaps being the same was more efficient to see and fix, so why not apply it to humans as well?

Maybe he saw that replication or similarity in education and worldview was a bad thing because it created sameness and limited innovation in a time when thinking outside the box (even if that phrase hadn’t yet come into being) was a very, very good thing to do.

Again, quotes are seldom fully digestible in their current form. Watch what you wish for, sounds instantly appealing and catchy, but how does it slot into our lives and help us navigate through work and marriage, as an example?

It probably doesn’t, but it might if and when we process it through our own minds, adding in our own perspective and worldview and turning it into something we can wield effectively.

And number 5:

It is, in fact, a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry.

Hmm, so what is our takeaway from this one? That education and by extension educators are really good at choking innovation and exploration? Cutting off intelligent inquiry and force-feeding students dogma instead?

Sounds right enough, I suppose. I am old enough to know that many educational methods used during my student days were as rigid and stiff as the desks we sat on.

Pixabay image

That rulers always had two functions: to measure and to punish.

That repetition, though needed at times, was easier and less demanding and thus made teaching easier, than trying to get behind the glazed expressions of the students and find the real being behind them.

But apart from being true or not, does this quote gives us leverage in our own lives? Can you take and assimilate it and use it tomorrow at work, at college, or in the bedroom when conversing with your significant other about child-rearing or finances?

Quotes are a glimpse into a person’s life — like sitting by the window of a train as it passes cities and farms and children waving by the side of the tracks.

If we’re lucky we see something memorable. But most likely we’ll only get something that we’ll have to discard or set aside later because it’s too small by itself to be meaningful.

Takeaways

I love quotes. Not all of them, but a few breach my defenses and get inside me, creating havoc when they’re in conflict with how I’ve been thinking.

But at the same time, I don’t trust quotes. They’re too pretty, too neat and brief. Too willing to appease, thus perhaps insincere. But they can be useful to stir things up. Like adding a pinch of cayenne to vanilla ice cream — not what was expected.

I suggest caution though when using quotes and accepting their limitations. They are not our thoughts but at times, other people’s that can stimulate our own. In that way they’re good. But they can also get us to look the other way — the less daunting view of life. In that way they’re bad.

I’ll end this article with two more quotes. Opposites in a way and you decide which one seems more relevant.

Thanks for reading.

Inspirational quotes are so effective because they are isolated pieces of information, not muddied or diluted by surrounding words or sentences. There is no context to the quote, other than the context of your life. Joe Tichio

“When one begins to live by habit and by quotation, one has begun to stop living.” James Baldwin

Dr Mehmet Yildiz Tree Langdon J.D. Harms Esther George James Knight George J. Ziogas Paul Myers MBA Stuart Englander Desiree Driesenaar The Secret Aspirant Rebecca Romanelli Linda Caroll Jenine Bsharah Baines Adelia Ritchie Claire Kelly Salvatore Cagliari Caroline de Braganza Amy Marley Alison Tennent P.G. Barnett

Thinking
Inspiration
Change
Self-awareness
Being Yourself
Recommended from ReadMedium
avatarStephen David Lovegrove
The Simple Beauty of a Modest Life

On Pinterest

7 min read