Was he right?

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

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

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

>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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Why would it matter otherwise?

Neither did my degree

should have picked a better major/school, ect.

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

kek

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

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 :)

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

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

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.

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

those kids are gonna be such fucked up adults

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

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

You first

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

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

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

>muh French Jew boogeyman

Grow the fuck up

>When you hit the nerve just right

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

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

Have you read Maps of Meaning?

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

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.

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

Peterson is a psychologist senpai.

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

He's hardly a philosopher.

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

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

He's a scientist, dipshit.

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.

>psychologist

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

lmao

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

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

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

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

Ok

>>Mediocre e-celebrity
citations in Google Scholar

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.

How the fuck is an "archtype" falsifiable?

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

... 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Ideology in its purest form, ladies and gentlemen

That doesn't mean shit senpai.

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.

Sure did to those poor schmucks

Jesus.

>in someway in all GREAT cultures

Ooh yeah, thats some hard falsfiability there

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

>tfw switched from political science major to english

fucked no matter what boys

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

>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, user.

>this thread

wtf I love Popper now

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

hah, your bait was good up until now.

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

>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 user, it's quite embarassing

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

>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.

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

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.

>>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.

jordanbpeterson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Peterson-JB-Maps-of-Meaning-Routledge-1999.pdf

Read Chapter 2.3 and judge for yourself

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.

No need to be patronizing

Itt: we justify our life choices to possible bots badly

Lectures

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

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

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

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

st. john's college

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.

>unironic appeal to authority

Citations in a meme field are meme citations

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.