This thread needs more lobster:
There was a lady dressed up as a lobster to take a picture with the guy who plays Aquaman, Jason Momoa. I wish I could have had a copy of that… I thought they posted on the local cosplay group but I can’t find it. You will just have to use your imagination.
Here is how Jason looked that day.
Is that Emilia Clark?
And is it wrong that I now cannot stop picturing a naked Jason Momoa with one of these on his peen?
Yep, Emilia Clark!
If that’s wrong, then I don’t want to be right (there he is, flipping off what’s right)!
Also, look at this beautiful family!
Beige Nation, baby!
I see Lisa Bonet’s daughter, Zoe Kravitz, in there!
OMG the clinic downtown spent a bazillion dollars rebuilding its first floor and the layout still makes no sense! They have people clustered up and blocking a hallway to try to talk to a pharmacist! No competent architect could possibly have been involved.
The way hospitals have to draw lines on the floor in order for people to find anything makes me suspect this is “normal” in the health care world.
Last year, my father and I went up to the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor. That place is so huge, they actually have staff whose sole purpose is to guide people where they need to go. (Which is an excellent idea, and we were very grateful.)
But a clinic’s much smaller, so I don’t get why they’d need such a complicated floor plan.
The problem with his obsession with hierarchies is that it’s not novel. Confucius thought the same and history shows how poorly it works on the large scale. It might work for small groups of people where social norms of filial piety are regularly enforced along with personal virtues or self-improvement. But when you get to complex societies where you got worldwide economies then you have to flatten hierarchies as much as possible to increase the throughput between organizations. You can’t get an iPhone producing world with the kind of virtues that Peterson extols. Those only really work in a feudal or rural society. Industrial and urban societies have to be flexible and willing to discard tradition for pragmatism and utility. Nothing less is acceptable.
And what if Dr.s A and B. are technically better surgeons, but C. is better at communicating with patients, thereby ensuring that they get more targeted treatment? Is it better for them to be ranked, or to collaborate as equals, ensuring that patients get the best all-round care?
But he is wrong, which is the whole point of the original response. We came up with human-based hierarchies—and these are arbitrary constructs only fastened in place via culture. It’s not something that is derived via biological evolution. Evolution doesn’t work that way.
Lobsters plainly do not do this, and looking lobsters as an example makes absolutely no sense whatever. So he is wrong.
That’s how it worked with my late father’s cancer treatment. At one point there were three highly competent doctors on the case: an oncologist (focused on treatment options), a surgeon (to do the actual cutting and cleaning), and a “survivorship” doctor (focusing on pain management, psychological well-being, rehab, etc.). That’s in addition to the various nurses, junior physicians, technicians, etc. that were on the team and the specialists that would be consulted. The oncologist was nominally in charge, but it was a very flat hierarchy and there were a number of times his advice was overruled by the other doctors.
This kind of team structure is a relatively recent development, something that was developed when the more rigidly hierarchical system wasn’t delivering good results for patients. I have no doubt that my father would have suffered more than he did under the old system, especially because his oncologist was an arrogant jerk who lost interest in the case the moment they ran out of runway on new experimental treatments.
Imagine, if you will, all of your pre-natal testing occurring within that complex. If for no other reason, teleportation should be invented so that no one has to risk getting lost in that labyrinth.
Ok, let me put it this way for all the Peterson apologists who still find this difficult: looking to evolution to provide impetus for his preferred format of “traditional” hierarchies makes as much sense as expecting it to explain:
- Your choice of operating system or
- Why some people prefer their toothpaste with minty sparkles or
- Why I like O-scale toy trains or
- Gender roles.
Evolution may supply the capacity for culture for an organism, but it’s not going to fill in the blanks.
That’s why no specific culture is universal the world around, but you’d have to know something about people and history to understand this. Those that don’t know, will think that Peterson is onto something. In other words, an appeal to nature comes with an appeal to ignorance.
Indeed, which is a big reason that he appeals so much to the ignorant. All the more ironic then is their common response to criticism of Peterson: " You’re just cherry-picking because you haven’t actually read enough of his writings and watched enough of his videos."
That certainly sums up just about every defense of the man’s ideology that I’ve read here on bb over the past three days; and I’d never even heard of the guy until Corey’s first post.
Bottom line: IMO, any belief system that requires a person to have been exposed to 100% of it in order to be able to criticize any part of it sounds like a straight up indoctrination scam.
Because at this point I have no interest in pursuing Peterson’s work any further, a fun question to ask them might be: what evidence will it take for them to realize that Peterson is wrong?
I’d heard of him, albeit only just. We were ridiculing his comments in our SciArt hangout this Saturday with another artist who was also a parasitologist with tenure.
Every blog seems to be writing about him now because… all the other blogs are writing about him. Pretty much a perfect feedback loop for a huckster to exploit.
So it would seem, but I ain’t buyin’ whatever he’s sellin’.